Propagating belief functions in qualitative Markov trees

Abstract This article is concerned with the computational aspects of combining evidence within the theory of belief functions. It shows that by taking advantage of logical or categorical relations among the questions we consider, we can sometimes avoid the computational complexity associated with brute-force application of Dempster's rule. The mathematical setting for this article is the lattice of partitions of a fixed overall frame of discernment. Different questions are represented by different partitions of this frame, and the categorical relations among these questions are represented by relations of qualitative conditional independence or dependence among the partitions. Qualitative conditional independence is a categorical rather than a probabilistic concept, but it is analogous to conditional independence for random variables. We show that efficient implementation of Dempster's rule is possible if the questions or partitions for which we have evidence are arranged in a qualitative Markov tree—a tree in which separations indicate relations of qualitative conditional independence. In this case, Dempster's rule can be implemented by propagating belief functions through the tree.

[1]  G. Shafer Lindley's Paradox , 1982 .

[2]  Prakash P. Shenoy,et al.  Propagating Belief Functions with Local Computations , 1986, IEEE Expert.

[3]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  Languages and Designs for Probability Judgment , 1985, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  The combination of evidence , 1986, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[5]  Bruce G. Buchanan,et al.  The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project , 1985 .

[6]  William J. Clancey,et al.  The Advantages of Abstract Control Knowledge in Expert System Design , 1983, AAAI.

[7]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  Probability Judgment in Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems , 1987 .

[8]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Evidence , 2020, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence.

[9]  Jeffrey A. Barnett,et al.  Computational Methods for a Mathematical Theory of Evidence , 1981, IJCAI.

[10]  Judea Pearl,et al.  On Evidential Reasoning in a Hierarchy of Hypotheses , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  Management of uncertainty in medicine , 1986, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[12]  A. Dempster Upper and Lower Probabilities Generated by a Random Closed Interval , 1968 .

[13]  A. Dempster UPPER AND LOWER PROBABILITY INFERENCES FOR FAMILIES OF HYPOTHESES WITH MONOTONE DENSITY RATIOS , 1969 .

[14]  Zhang Lian-Wen Weights of evidence and internal conflict for support functions , 1986, Inf. Sci..

[15]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Fusion, Propagation, and Structuring in Belief Networks , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Reverend Bayes on Inference Engines: A Distributed Hierarchical Approach , 1982, AAAI.

[17]  Khaled Mellouli,et al.  On the propagation of beliefs in networks using the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence , 1987 .

[18]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Multivalued dependencies and a new normal form for relational databases , 1977, TODS.

[19]  Yehoshua Sagiv,et al.  Subset Dependencies and a Completeness Result for a Subclass of Embedded Multivalued Dependencies , 1982, JACM.

[20]  David Maier,et al.  The Theory of Relational Databases , 1983 .

[21]  John P. Moussouris Gibbs and Markov random systems with constraints , 1974 .

[22]  Judea Pearl,et al.  The Logic of Representing Dependencies by Directed Graphs , 1987, AAAI.

[23]  Zdzislaw Pawlak,et al.  Rough classification , 1984, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[24]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Distributed Revision of Belief Commitment in Multi-Hypothesis Interpretations , 1986, UAI 1986.

[25]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  Implementing Dempster's Rule for Hierarchical Evidence , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[26]  John D. Lowrance,et al.  An Inference Technique for Integrating Knowledge from Disparate Sources , 1981, IJCAI.

[27]  Thomas M. Strat Continuous Belief Functions for Evidential Reasoning , 1984, AAAI.