On cautious probabilistic inference and default detachment

Conditional probabilities are one promising and widely used approach to model uncertainty in information systems. This paper discusses the DUCK-calculus, which is founded on the cautious approach to uncertain probabilistic inference. Based on a set of sound inference rules, derived probabilistic information is gained by local bounds propagation techniques. Precision being always a central point of criticism to such systems, we demonstrate that DUCK need not necessarily suffer from these problems. We can show that the popular Bayesian networks are subsumed by DUCK, implying that precise probabilities can be deduced by local propagation techniques, even in the multiply connected case. A comparative study with INFERNO and with inference techniques based on global operations-research techniques yields quite favorable results for our approach. Since conditional probabilities are also suited to model nonmonotonic situations by considering different contexts, we investigate the problems of maximal and relevant contexts, needed to draw default conclusions about individuals.

[1]  Rudolf Kruse,et al.  Uncertainty and vagueness in knowledge based systems: numerical methods , 1991, Artificial intelligence.

[2]  Gregory F. Cooper,et al.  The Computational Complexity of Probabilistic Inference Using Bayesian Belief Networks , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[3]  D. Saunders.  Improvements to INFERNO , 1989 .

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

[5]  Dan Geiger,et al.  Conditional independence and its representations , 1990, Kybernetika.

[6]  John N. Hooker,et al.  Bayesian logic , 1994, Decision Support Systems.

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

[8]  V. S. Subrahmanian,et al.  Empirical Probabilities in Monadic Deductive Databases , 1992, UAI.

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

[10]  Didier Dubois,et al.  A Symbolic Approach to Reasoning with Linguistic Quantifiers , 1992, UAI.

[11]  Léa Sombé.  Reasoning under incomplete information in artificial intelligence: A comparison of formalisms using a single example , 1990, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

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

[13]  Rudolf Kruse,et al.  Uncertainty and Vagueness in Knowledge Based Systems , 1991, Artificial Intelligence.

[14]  Ronald Prescott Loui.  Computing reference classes , 1986, UAI.

[15]  Gerhard Brewka,et al.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Commonsense By Gerhard Brewka (Cambridge University Press, 1991) , 1991, SGAR.

[16]  L. Wittgenstein.  Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus , 2021, Nordic Wittgenstein Review.

[17]  Kristian G. Olesen,et al.  HUGIN - A Shell for Building Bayesian Belief Universes for Expert Systems , 1989, IJCAI.

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

[19]  Henry E. Kyburg,,et al.  The Reference Class , 1983, Philosophy of Science.

[20]  Werner Kießling,et al.  Fixpoint Evaluation with Subsumption for Probabilistic Uncertainty , 1993, BTW.

[21]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Probabilistic Logic * , 2022 .

[22]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Uncertainty, belief, and probability 1 , 1991, IJCAI.

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

[24]  X. Liu,et al.  On the validity and applicability of the INFERNO system , 1987 .

[25]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Conditional Entailment: Bridging two Approaches to Default Reasoning , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[26]  H. Jeffreys,et al.  The Theory of Probability , 1896 .