Increased robustness of Bayesian networks through probability intervals

Abstract We present an extension of Bayesian networks to probability intervals, aiming at a more realistic and flexible modeling of applications with uncertain and imprecise knowledge. Within the logical framework of causal programs we provide a model-theoretic foundation for a formal treatment of consistency and of logical consequences. A set of local inference rules is developed, which is proved to be sound and—in the absence of loops—also to be complete; i.e., tightest probability bounds can be computed incrementally by bounds propagation. These inference rules can be evaluated very efficiently in linear time and space. An important feature of this approach is that sensitivity analyses can be carried out systematically, unveiling portions of the network that are prone to chaotic behavior. Such investigations can be employed for improving network design towards more robust and reliable decision analysis.

[1]  Werner Kießling,et al.  Database Support for Problematic Knowledge , 1992, EDBT.

[2]  Bjørnar Tessem,et al.  Interval probability propagation , 1992, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[3]  Paul Morawski,et al.  Understanding Bayesian belief networks , 1989 .

[4]  Henry E. Kyburg,et al.  Higher order probabilities and intervals , 1988, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[5]  Werner Kießling,et al.  On cautious probabilistic inference and default detachment , 1995, Ann. Oper. Res..

[6]  David J. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems , 1990 .

[7]  Helmut Thöne Precise conclusions under uncertainty and incompleteness in deductive database systems , 1994 .

[8]  John S. Breese,et al.  Interval Influence Diagrams , 1989, UAI.

[9]  L. N. Kanal,et al.  Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 5 , 1990 .

[10]  David J. Spiegelhalter,et al.  A Unified Approach to Imprecision and Sensitivity of Beliefs in Expert Systems , 1987, Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence.

[11]  Serafín Moral,et al.  Combination of Upper and Lower Probabilities , 1991, UAI.

[12]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Inferno: A Cautious Approach To Uncertain Inference , 1986, Comput. J..

[13]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  Readings in Uncertain Reasoning , 1990 .

[14]  Werner Kießling,et al.  Modeling, Chaining and Fusion of Uncertain Knowledge , 1995, DASFAA.

[15]  Fahiem Bacchus,et al.  Representing and reasoning with probabilistic knowledge - a logical approach to probabilities , 1991 .

[16]  DatabasesThomas,et al.  Taxonomic and Uncertain Reasoning inObject-Oriented , 1994 .

[17]  Kathryn B. Laskey Sensitivity analysis for probability assessments in Bayesian networks , 1995, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[18]  Gregory F. Cooper,et al.  NESTOR: A Computer-Based Medical Diagnostic Aid That Integrates Causal and Probabilistic Knowledge. , 1984 .

[19]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems , 1988 .

[20]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Probabilistic Semantics for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: A Survey , 1989, KR.

[21]  David J. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Probabilistic Reasoning in Predictive Expert Systems , 1985, UAI.

[22]  David Heckerman,et al.  Diagnosis of Multiple Faults: A Sensitivity Analysis , 1993, UAI.

[23]  Werner Kießling,et al.  New direction for uncertainty reasoning in deductive databases , 1991, SIGMOD '91.

[24]  Werner Kießling,et al.  Towards Precision of Probabilistic Bounds Propagation , 1992, UAI.

[25]  Henry E. Kyburg Epistemological relevance and statistical knowledge , 1988, UAI.

[26]  Piero P. Bonissone,et al.  RUM: A Layered Architecture for Reasoning with Uncertainty , 1987, IJCAI.

[27]  Thomas Lukasiewicz The TOP Database Model − Taxonomy‚ Object−Orientation and Probability , 1994 .