In this paper a new mathematical procedure is presented for combining different pieces of evidence which are represented in the interval form to reflect our knowledge about the truth of a hypothesis. Evidences may be correlated to each other (dependent evidences) or conflicting in supports (conflicting evidences). First, assuming independent evidences, we propose a methodology to construct combination rules which obey a set of essential properties. The method is based on a geometric model. We compare results obtained from Dempster-Shafer's rule and the proposed combination rules with both conflicting and non-conflicting data and show that the values generated by proposed combining rules are in tune with our intuition in both cases. Secondly, in the case that evidences are known to be dependent, we consider extensions of the rules derived for handling conflicting evidence. The performance of proposed rules are shown by different examples. The results show that the proposed rules reasonably make decision under dependent evidences

This paper presents a new technique for the design of approximate reasoning based controllers for dynamic physical systems with interacting goals. In this approach, goals are achieved based on a hierarchy defined by a control knowledge base and remain highly interactive during the execution of the control task. The approach has been implemented in a rule-based computer program which is used in conjunction with a prototype hardware system to solve the cart-pole balancing problem in real-time. It provides a complementary approach to the conventional analytical control methodology, and is of substantial use where a precise mathematical model of the process being controlled is not available.

In this paper, we suggest marrying Dempster-Shafer (DS) theory with Knowledge Representation (KR). Born out of this marriage is the definition of "Dempster-Shafer Belief Bases", abstract data types representing uncertain knowledge that use DS theory for representing strength of belief about our knowledge, and the linguistic structures of an arbitrary KR system for representing the knowledge itself. A formal result guarantees that both the properties of the given KR system and of DS theory are preserved. The general model is exemplified by defining DS Belief Bases where First Order Logic and (an extension of) KRYPTON are used as KR systems. The implementation problem is also touched upon.

In this paper we associate with every (directed) graph G a transformation called the Mobius transformation of the graph G. The Mobius transformation of the graph (O) is of major significance for Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. However, because it is computationally very heavy, the Mobius transformation together with Dempster's rule of combination is a major obstacle to the use of Dempster-Shafer theory for handling uncertainty in expert systems. The major contribution of this paper is the discovery of the 'fast Mobius transformations' of (O). These 'fast Mobius transformations' are the fastest algorithms for computing the Mobius transformation of (O). As an easy but useful application, we provide, via the commonality function, an algorithm for computing Dempster's rule of combination which is much faster than the usual one.

This paper describes valuation-based systems for representing and solving discrete optimization problems. In valuation-based systems, we represent information in an optimization problem using variables, sample spaces of variables, a set of values, and functions that map sample spaces of sets of variables to the set of values. The functions, called valuations, represent the factors of an objective function. Solving the optimization problem involves using two operations called combination and marginalization. Combination tells us how to combine the factors of the joint objective function. Marginalization is either maximization or minimization. Solving an optimization problem can be simply described as finding the marginal of the joint objective function for the empty set. We state some simple axioms that combination and marginalization need to satisfy to enable us to solve an optimization problem using local computation. For optimization problems, the solution method of valuation-based systems reduces to non-serial dynamic programming. Thus our solution method for VBS can be regarded as an abstract description of dynamic programming. And our axioms can be viewed as conditions that permit the use of dynamic programming.

Dempster-Shafer's model aims at quantifying degrees of belief But there are so many interpretations of Dempster-Shafer's theory in the literature that it seems useful to present the various contenders in order to clarify their respective positions. We shall successively consider the classical probability model, the upper and lower probabilities model, Dempster's model, the transferable belief model, the evidentiary value model, the provability or necessity model. None of these models has received the qualification of Dempster-Shafer. In fact the transferable belief model is our interpretation not of Dempster's work but of Shafer's work as presented in his book (Shafer 1976, Smets 1988). It is a ?purified' form of Dempster-Shafer's model in which any connection with probability concept has been deleted. Any model for belief has at least two components: one static that describes our state of belief, the other dynamic that explains how to update our belief given new pieces of information. We insist on the fact that both components must be considered in order to study these models. Too many authors restrict themselves to the static component and conclude that Dempster-Shafer theory is the same as some other theory. But once the dynamic component is considered, these conclusions break down. Any comparison based only on the static component is too restricted. The dynamic component must also be considered as the originality of the models based on belief functions lies in its dynamic component.

We define a new notion of conditional belief, which plays the same role for Dempster-Shafer belief functions as conditional probability does for probability functions. Our definition is different from the standard definition given by Dempster, and avoids many of the well-known problems of that definition. Just as the conditional probability Pr (lB) is a probability function which is the result of conditioning on B being true, so too our conditional belief function Bel (lB) is a belief function which is the result of conditioning on B being true. We define the conditional belief as the lower envelope (that is, the inf) of a family of conditional probability functions, and provide a closed form expression for it. An alternate way of understanding our definition of conditional belief is provided by considering ideas from an earlier paper [Fagin and Halpern, 1989], where we connect belief functions with inner measures. In particular, we show here how to extend the definition of conditional probability to non measurable sets, in order to get notions of inner and outer conditional probabilities, which can be viewed as best approximations to the true conditional probability, given our lack of information. Our definition of conditional belief turns out to be an exact analogue of our definition of inner conditional probability.

This paper discusses how a measure of uncertainty representing a state of knowledge can be updated when a new information, which may be pervaded with uncertainty, becomes available. This problem is considered in various framework, namely: Shafer's evidence theory, Zadeh's possibility theory, Spohn's theory of epistemic states. In the two first cases, analogues of Jeffrey's rule of conditioning are introduced and discussed. The relations between Spohn's model and possibility theory are emphasized and Spohn's updating rule is contrasted with the Jeffrey-like rule of conditioning in possibility theory. Recent results by Shenoy on the combination of ordinal conditional functions are reinterpreted in the language of possibility theory. It is shown that Shenoy's combination rule has a well-known possibilistic counterpart.

We are concerned with the problem of introducing credibility type information into reasoning systems. The concept of credibility allows us to discount information provided by agents. An important characteristic of this kind of procedure is that a complete lack of credibility rather than resulting in the negation of the information provided results in the nullification of the information provided. We suggest a representational scheme for credibility qualification in the theory of approximate reasoning. We discuss the concept of relative credibility. By this idea we mean to indicate situations in which the credibility of a piece of evidence is determined by its compatibility with higher priority evidence. This situation leads to structures very much in the spirit of nonmonotonic reasoning.

Rule based reasoning (RBR) and case based reasoning (CBR) have emerged as two important and complementary reasoning methodologies in artificial intelligence (Al). For problem solving in complex, real world situations, it is useful to integrate RBR and CBR. This paper presents an approach to achieve a compact and seamless integration of RBR and CBR within the base architecture of rules. The paper focuses on the possibilistic nature of the approximate reasoning methodology common to both CBR and RBR. In CBR, the concept of similarity is casted as the complement of the distance between cases. In RBR the transitivity of similarity is the basis for the approximate deductions based on the generalized modus ponens. It is shown that the integration of CBR and RBR is possible without altering the inference engine of RBR. This integration is illustrated in the financial domain of mergers and acquisitions. These ideas have been implemented in a prototype system called MARS.