The process of diagnosis involves learning about the state of a system from various observations of symptoms or findings about the system. Sophisticated Bayesian (and other) algorithms have been developed to revise and maintain beliefs about the system as observations are made. Nonetheless, diagnostic models have tended to ignore some common sense reasoning exploited by human diagnosticians; In particular, one can learn from which observations have not been made, in the spirit of conversational implicature. There are two concepts that we describe to extract information from the observations not made. First, some symptoms, if present, are more likely to be reported before others. Second, most human diagnosticians and expert systems are economical in their data-gathering, searching first where they are more likely to find symptoms present. Thus, there is a desirable bias toward reporting symptoms that are present. We develop a simple model for these concepts that can significantly improve diagnostic inference.

I present a parallel algorithm for exact probabilistic inference in Bayesian networks. For polytree networks with n variables, the worst-case time complexity is O(log n) on a CREW PRAM (concurrent-read, exclusive-write parallel random-access machine) with n processors, for any constant number of evidence variables. For arbitrary networks, the time complexity is O(r^{3w}*log n) for n processors, or O(w*log n) for r^{3w}*n processors, where r is the maximum range of any variable, and w is the induced width (the maximum clique size), after moralizing and triangulating the network.

This paper presents two new approaches to decomposing and solving large Markov decision problems (MDPs), a partial decoupling method and a complete decoupling method. In these approaches, a large, stochastic decision problem is divided into smaller pieces. The first approach builds a cache of policies for each part of the problem independently, and then combines the pieces in a separate, light-weight step. A second approach also divides the problem into smaller pieces, but information is communicated between the different problem pieces, allowing intelligent decisions to be made about which piece requires the most attention. Both approaches can be used to find optimal policies or approximately optimal policies with provable bounds. These algorithms also provide a framework for the efficient transfer of knowledge across problems that share similar structure.

Distributed knowledge based applications in open domain rely on common sense information which is bound to be uncertain and incomplete. To draw the useful conclusions from ambiguous data, one must address uncertainties and conflicts incurred in a holistic view. No integrated frameworks are viable without an in-depth analysis of conflicts incurred by uncertainties. In this paper, we give such an analysis and based on the result, propose an integrated framework. Our framework extends definite argumentation theory to model uncertainty. It supports three views over conflicting and uncertain knowledge. Thus, knowledge engineers can draw different conclusions depending on the application context (i.e. view). We also give an illustrative example on strategical decision support to show the practical usefulness of our framework.

In this paper we address the problem of discretization in the context of learning Bayesian networks (BNs) from data containing both continuous and discrete variables. We describe a new technique for multivariate discretization, whereby each continuous variable is discretized while taking into account its interaction with the other variables. The technique is based on the use of a Bayesian scoring metric that scores the discretization policy for a continuous variable given a BN structure and the observed data. Since the metric is relative to the BN structure currently being evaluated, the discretization of a variable needs to be dynamically adjusted as the BN structure changes.

Several authors have explained that the likelihood ratio measures the strength of the evidence represented by observations in statistical problems. This idea works fine when the goal is to evaluate the strength of the available evidence for a simple hypothesis versus another simple hypothesis. However, the applicability of this idea is limited to simple hypotheses because the likelihood function is primarily defined on points - simple hypotheses - of the parameter space. In this paper we define a general weight of evidence that is applicable to both simple and composite hypotheses. It is based on the Dempster Shafer concept of plausibility and is shown to be a generalization of the likelihood ratio. Functional models are of a fundamental importance for the general weight of evidence proposed in this paper. The relevant concepts and ideas are explained by means of a familiar urn problem and the general analysis of a real-world medical problem is presented.

The efficiency of algorithms using secondary structures for probabilistic inference in Bayesian networks can be improved by exploiting independence relations induced by evidence and the direction of the links in the original network. In this paper we present an algorithm that on-line exploits independence relations induced by evidence and the direction of the links in the original network to reduce both time and space costs. Instead of multiplying the conditional probability distributions for the various cliques, we determine on-line which potentials to multiply when a message is to be produced. The performance improvement of the algorithm is emphasized through empirical evaluations involving large real world Bayesian networks, and we compare the method with the HUGIN and Shafer-Shenoy inference algorithms.

Crucially, in contrast to similar inference rules in the literature, our inference rules are locally complete for conjunctive events and under additional taxonomic knowledge. We discover that our inference rules are extremely complex and that it is at first glance not clear at all where the deduced tightest bounds come from. Moreover, analyzing the global completeness of our inference rules, we find examples of globally very incomplete probabilistic deductions. More generally, we even show that all systems of inference rules for taxonomic and probabilistic knowledge-bases over conjunctive events are globally incomplete. We conclude that probabilistic deduction by the iterative application of inference rules on interval restrictions for conditional probabilities, even though considered very promising in the literature so far, seems very limited in its field of application.

Using the signs of qualitative relationships, we can implement abstraction operations that are guaranteed to bound the distributions of interest in the desired direction. By evaluating incrementally improved approximate networks, our algorithm obtains monotonically tightening bounds that converge to exact distributions. For supermodular utility functions, the tightening bounds monotonically reduce the set of admissible decision alternatives as well. 1 Introduction Approximation techniques have gained increasing interest among those employing Bayesian networks for probabilistic reasoning, despite the fact that computing a desired probability distribution to a fixed degree of accuracy has been shown to be NPhard (Dagum & Luby 1993). Approximation techniques offer reasonable prospects of significant accuracy, and increased opportunity to consider applications larger than we could otherwise. For instance, approximation techniques can be useful for applications that need to respond to requests for solutions under time constraints. By appropriately managing the reasoning process, we may obtain approximate solutions that meet the needs of these applications in cases where we would not be able to compute exact solutions given the time constraints.

Qualitative probabilistic reasoning in a Bayesian network often reveals tradeoffs: relationships that are ambiguous due to competing qualitative influences. We present two techniques that combine qualitative and numeric probabilistic reasoning to resolve such tradeoffs, inferring the qualitative relationship between nodes in a Bayesian network. The first approach incrementally marginalizes nodes that contribute to the ambiguous qualitative relationships. The second approach evaluates approximate Bayesian networks for bounds of probability distributions, and uses these bounds to determinate qualitative relationships in question. This approach is also incremental in that the algorithm refines the state spaces of random variables for tighter bounds until the qualitative relationships are resolved. Both approaches provide systematic methods for tradeoff resolution at potentially lower computational cost than application of purely numeric methods. 1