The fundamental elements of evidential reasoning problems are described, followed by a discussion of the structure of various types of problems. Bayesian inference networks and state space formalism are used as the tool for problem representation. A human-oriented decision making cycle for solving evidential reasoning problems is described and illustrated for a military situation assessment problem. The implementation of this cycle may serve as the basis for an expert system shell for evidential reasoning; i.e. a situation assessment processor.

During the ongoing debate over the representation of uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Cheeseman, Lemmer, Pearl, and others have argued that probability theory, and in particular the Bayesian theory, should be used as the basis for the inference mechanisms of Expert Systems dealing with uncertainty. In order to pursue the issue in a practical setting, sophisticated tools for knowledge engineering are needed that allow flexible and understandable interaction with the underlying knowledge representation schemes. This paper describes a Generalized Bayesian framework for building expert systems which function in uncertain domains, using algorithms proposed by Lemmer. It is neither rule-based nor frame-based, and requires a new system of knowledge engineering tools. The framework we describe provides a knowledge-based system architecture with an inference engine, explanation capability, and a unique aid for building consistent knowledge bases.

This paper presents a methodology for research and development of the inferencing and knowledge representation aspects of an Expert System approach for performing reasoning under uncertainty in support of a real time vehicle guidance and navigation system. Such a system could be of major benefit for non-terrain following low altitude flight systems operating in foreign hostile environments such as might be experienced by NOE helicopter or similar mission craft. An innovative extension of the evidential reasoning methodology, termed the Sum-and-Lattice-Points Method, has been developed. The research and development effort presented in this paper consists of a formal mathematical development of the Sum-and-Lattice-Points Method, its formulation and representation in a parallel environment, prototype software development of the method within an expert system, and initial testing of the system within the confines of the vehicle guidance system.

Although many investigators affirm a desire to build reasoning systems that behave consistently with the axiomatic basis defined by probability theory and utility theory, limited resources for engineering and computation can make a complete normative analysis impossible. We attempt to move discussion beyond the debate over the scope of problems that can be handled effectively to cases where it is clear that there are insufficient computational resources to perform an analysis deemed as complete. Under these conditions, we stress the importance of considering the expected costs and benefits of applying alternative approximation procedures and heuristics for computation and knowledge acquisition. We discuss how knowledge about the structure of user utility can be used to control value tradeoffs for tailoring inference to alternative contexts. We address the notion of real-time rationality, focusing on the application of knowledge about the expected timewise-refinement abilities of reasoning strategies to balance the benefits of additional computation with the costs of acting with a partial result. We discuss the benefits of applying decision theory to control the solution of difficult problems given limitations and uncertainty in reasoning resources.

Ross D. Shachter and Leonard J. Bertrand Department of Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University (visiting the Center for Health Policy Research and Education, Duke University, PO Box GM, Durham, NC 27706) and Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, CA for the Third Workshop on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence Seattle, Washington, July 10-12, 1987 The generalized fault diagram, a data structure for failure analysis based on the influence diagram, is defined. Unlike the fault tree, this structure allows for dependence among the basic events and replicated logical elements. A heuristic procedure is developed for efficient processing of these structures. Deterministic logic and conditional probabilities are both appealing frameworks in which to build a knowledge base. Each has a natural graphical representation, semantic network for logic and influence diagrams (Howard and Matheson, 1981) or bayes networks (Pearl, 1986) for probabilities.

Many robotic sensor estimation problems can characterized in terms of nonlinear measurement systems. These systems are contaminated with noise and may be underdetermined from a single observation. In order to get reliable estimation results, the system must choose views which result in an overdetermined system. This is the sensor control problem. Accurate and reliable sensor control requires an estimation procedure which yields both estimates and measures of its own performance. In the case of nonlinear measurement systems, computationally simple closed-form estimation solutions may not exist. However, approximation techniques provide viable alternatives. In this paper, we evaluate three estimation techniques: the extended Kalman filter, a discrete Bayes approximation, and an iterative Bayes approximation. We present mathematical results and simulation statistics illustrating operating conditions where the extended Kalman filter is inappropriate for sensor control, and discuss issues in the use of the discrete Bayes approximation.

This paper reports work in progress on an explanation facility for Bayesian conditioning aimed at improving user acceptance of probability-based decision support systems. Design of the facility, which appears to be reasonably domain-independent, is based on an information processing model that accounts both for biased and normative behavior in reasoning about conditional evidence. Preliminary results indicate that the facility is both acceptable to naive users and effective in improving understanding of Bayesian conditioning.

A complete approach to reasoning under uncertainty requires support for incremental and interactive formulation and revision of, as well as reasoning with, models of the problem domain capable of representing our uncertainty. We present a hybrid reasoning scheme which combines symbolic and numeric methods for uncertainty management to provide efficient and effective support for each of these tasks. The hybrid is based on symbolic techniques adapted from Assumption-based Truth Maintenance systems (ATMS), combined with numeric methods adapted from the Dempster/Shafer theory of evidence, as extended in Baldwin's Support Logic Programming system. The hybridization is achieved by viewing an ATMS as a symbolic algebra system for uncertainty calculations. This technique has several major advantages over conventional methods for performing inference with numeric certainty estimates in addition to the ability to dynamically determine hypothesis spaces, including improved management of dependent and partially independent evidence, faster run-time evaluation of propositional certainties, the ability to query the certainty value of a proposition from multiple perspectives, and the ability to incrementally extend or revise domain models.

A method for computing probabilistic propositions is presented. It assumes the availability of a single external routine for computing the probability of one instantiated variable, given a conjunction of other instantiated variables. In particular, the method allows belief network algorithms to calculate general probabilistic propositions over nodes in the network. Although in the worst case the time complexity of the method is exponential in the size of a query, it is polynomial in the size of a number of common types of queries.

Reasoning under uncertainty in Al hats come to mean assessing the credibility of hypotheses inferred from evidence. But techniques for assessing credibility do not tell a problem solver what to do when it is uncertain. This is the focus of our current research. We have developed a medical expert system called MUM, for Managing Uncertainty in Medicine, that plans diagnostic sequences of questions, tests, and treatments. This paper describes the kinds of problems that MUM was designed to solve and gives a brief description of its architecture. More recently, we have built an empty version of MUM called MU, and used it to reimplement MUM and a small diagnostic system for plant pathology. The latter part of the paper describes the features of MU that make it appropriate for building expert systems that manage uncertainty.