Competing hypotheses and abductive inference

This paper explores the nature of competition between hypotheses and the effect of failing to model this relationship correctly when performing abductive inference. In terms of the nature of competition, the importance of the interplay between direct and indirect pathways, where the latter depends on the evidence under consideration, is investigated. Experimental results show that models which treat hypotheses as mutually exclusive or independent perform well in an abduction problem that requires identifying the most probable hypothesis, provided there is at least some positive degree of competition between the hypotheses. However, even in such cases a significant limitation of these models is their inability to identify a second hypothesis that may well also be true.

[1]  José A. Gámez,et al.  Abductive Inference in Bayesian Networks: Finding a Partition of the Explanation Space , 2005, ECSQARU.

[2]  J. Schupbach.  Comparing Probabilistic Measures of Explanatory Power , 2011, Philosophy of Science.

[3]  John R. Josephson,et al.  Abductive inference : computation, philosophy, technology , 1994 .

[4]  Johan Kwisthout,et al.  Most probable explanations in Bayesian networks: Complexity and tractability , 2011, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[5]  Changhe Yuan,et al.  Most Relevant Explanation in Bayesian Networks , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[6]  David H. Glass,et al.  An evaluation of probabilistic approaches to inference to the best explanation , 2018, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[7]  P. Kleingeld,et al.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2013 .

[8]  Johan Kwisthout,et al.  Most frugal explanations in Bayesian networks , 2015, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Marek J. Druzdzel,et al.  Intercausal Reasoning with Uninstantiated Ancestor Nodes , 1993, UAI.

[10]  A. Darwiche,et al.  Complexity Results and Approximation Strategies for MAP Explanations , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[11]  Peter Lipton,et al.  Inference to the best explanation , 1993 .

[12]  D. H. Glass,et al.  Hypothesis Competition beyond Mutual Exclusivity , 2017, Philosophy of Science.

[13]  Carmen Lacave,et al.  A review of explanation methods for Bayesian networks , 2002, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[14]  David H. Glass,et al.  Coherence measures and inference to the best explanation , 2007, Synthese.

[15]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Abduction in logic programming , 2002 .

[16]  J. Kemeny,et al.  Degree of Factual Support , 1952, Philosophy of Science.

[17]  David Poole,et al.  The Independent Choice Logic and Beyond , 2008, Probabilistic Inductive Logic Programming.

[18]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  Abductive Logic Programming , 1992, LPNMR.

[19]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Defining Explanation in Probabilistic Systems , 1997, UAI.

[20]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  Explaining 'Explaining Away' , 1993, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[21]  André Elisseeff,et al.  Explanation Trees for Causal Bayesian Networks , 2008, UAI.

[22]  Peter A. Flach,et al.  On the relation between abduction and inductive learning , 2000 .

[23]  Van Fraassen,et al.  Laws and symmetry , 1989 .

[24]  David Poole,et al.  Probabilistic Horn Abduction and Bayesian Networks , 1993, Artif. Intell..

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

[26]  David Poole,et al.  The Independent Choice Logic for Modelling Multiple Agents Under Uncertainty , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[27]  Solomon Eyal Shimony.  Explanation, Irrelevance, and Statistical Independence , 1991, AAAI.

[28]  Lefteris Farmakis.  Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd edition , 2004 .

[29]  Igor Douven,et al.  Inference to the Best Explanation, Dutch Books, and Inaccuracy Minimisation , 2013 .

[30]  David H. Glass.  Inference to the best explanation: does it track truth? , 2010, Synthese.