Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Summary and Discussion
References
All Topics
Mathematics
Mathematical Logic

MEBN A Language for First-Order Bayesian Knowledge Bases

Profile image of Kathryn LaskeyKathryn Laskey

Abstract

Although classical first-order logic is the de facto standard logical foundation for artificial intelligence, the lack of a built-in, semantically grounded capability for reasoning under uncertainty renders it inadequate for many important classes of problems. Probability is the bestunderstood and most widely applied formalism for computational scientific reasoning under uncertainty. Increasingly expressive languages are emerging for which the fundamental logical basis is probability. This paper presents Multi-Entity Bayesian Networks (MEBN), a first-order language for specifying probabilistic knowledge bases as parameterized fragments of Bayesian networks. MEBN fragments (MFrags) can be instantiated and combined to form arbitrarily complex graphical probability models. An MFrag represents probabilistic relationships among a conceptually meaningful group of uncertain hypotheses. Thus, MEBN facilitates representation of knowledge at a natural level of granularity. The semantics of MEBN assigns a probability distribution over interpretations of an associated classical first-order theory on a finite or countably infinite domain. Bayesian inference provides both a proof theory for combining prior knowledge with observations, and a learning theory for refining a representation as evidence accrues. A proof is given that MEBN can represent a probability distribution on interpretations of any finitely axiomatizable first-order theory.

Related papers

Probabilistic Logic for Belief Nets
John Hooker

1990

We describe how to combine probabilistic logic and Bayesian networks to obtain a new framework (\Bayesian logic") for dealing with uncertainty and causal relationships in an expert system. Probabilistic logic, invented by Boole, is a technique for drawing inferences from uncertain propositions for which there are no independence assumptions. A Bayesian network is a \belief net" that can represent complex conditional independence assumptions. We show how to solve inference problems in Bayesian logic by applying Benders decomposition to a nonlinear programming formulation. We also show that the number of constraints grows only linearly with the problem size for a large class of networks.

View PDFchevron_right
Probabilistic Logic Programming and Bayesian Networks
Peter Haddawy

1995

We present a probabilistic logic programming framework that allows the representation of conditional probabilities. While conditional probabilities are the most commonly used method for representing uncertainty in probabilistic expert systems, they have been largely neglected by work in quantitative logic programming. We define a fixpoint theory, declarative semantics, and proof procedure for the new class of probabilistic logic programs. Compared to other approaches to quantitative logic programming, we provide a true probabilistic framework with potential applications in probabilistic expert systems and decision support systems. We also discuss the relationship between such programs and Bayesian networks, thus moving toward a unification of two major approaches to automated reasoning.

View PDFchevron_right
Local Probability Distributions in Bayesian Networks: Knowledge Elicitation and Inference
Marek Druzdzel

Bayesian networks (BNs) have proven to be a modeling framework capable of capturing uncertain knowledge and have been applied successfully in many domains for over 25 years. The strength of Bayesian networks lies in the graceful combination of probability theory and a graphical structure representing probabilistic dependencies among domain variables in a compact manner that is intuitive for humans. One major challenge related to building practical BN models is specification of conditional probability distributions. The number of probability distributions in a conditional probability table for a given variable is exponential in its number of parent nodes, so that defining them becomes problematic or even impossible from a practical standpoint. The objective of this dissertation is to develop a better understanding of models for compact representations of local probability distributions. The hypothesis is that such models should allow for building larger models more efficiently and lead to a wider range of BN applications. iii 1 Intermediate steps for calculating P (Y |x) for the parameters given in the example.

View PDFchevron_right
Simplifying Probability Elicitation and Uncertainty Modeling in Bayesian Networks
S Hossain

In this paper we contribute two novel methods that simplify the demands of knowledge elicitation for particular types of Bayesian networks. The first method simplifies the task of experts providing conditional probabilities when the states that a random variable takes can be described by a fully ordered set. In this order, each state's definition is inclusive of the preceding state's definition. Knowledge for the state is then elicited as a conditional probability of the preceding state. The second method leverages the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence to provide a way for the expert to express the degree of ignorance that they feel about the estimates being provided.

View PDFchevron_right
Logical Bayesian Networks and Their Relation to Other Probabilistic Logical Models
Jan Ramon

Inductive Logic …, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Introducing Bayesian Networks 2.1 Introduction
S R

Having presented both theoretical and practical reasons for artificial intelligence to use probabilistic reasoning, we now introduce the key computer technology for dealing with probabilities in AI, namely Bayesian networks. Bayesian networks (BNs) are graphical models for reasoning under uncertainty, where the nodes represent variables (discrete or continuous) and arcs represent direct connections between them. These direct connections are often causal connections. In addition, BNs model the quantitative strength of the connections between variables, allowing probabilistic beliefs about them to be updated automatically as new information becomes available. In this chapter we will describe how Bayesian networks are put together (the syntax) and how to interpret the information encoded in a network (the semantics). We will look at how to model a problem with a Bayesian network and the types of reasoning that can be performed.

View PDFchevron_right
Network Fragments: Representing Knowledge for Constructing Probabilistic Models
Kathryn Laskey

In most current applications of belief networks, domain knowledge is represented by a single belief network that applies to all problem instances in the domain. In more complex domains, problem-specific models must be constructed from a knowledge base encoding probabilistic relationships in the domain. Most work in knowledge-based model construction takes the rule as the basic unit of knowledge. We present a knowledge representation framework that permits the knowledge base designer to specify knowledge in larger semantically meaningful units which we call network fragments. Our framework provides for representation of asymmetric independence and canonical intercausal interaction. We discuss the combination of network fragments to form problem-specific models to reason about particular problem instances. The framework is illustrated using examples from the domain of military situation awareness.

View PDFchevron_right
Knowledge and data fusion in probabilistic networks
Kathryn Laskey

2003

Probability theory provides the theoretical basis for a logically coherent process of combining prior knowledge with empirical data to draw plausible inferences and to refine theories as observations accrue. Increases in the expressive power of languages for expressing probabilistic theories have been accompanied by refinements and adaptations of Bayesian learning methods to handle the more expressive constructs. These innovations have established Bayesian learning as a unifying theoretical framework for learning in intelligent systems, and have given rise to practical techniques that are receiving wide application. This paper describes theory and methods for exact and approximate learning of probabilistic theories from a combination of background knowledge and observations. The concepts and methods can be adapted to any knowledge representation framework that can express probability distributions over interpretations of a first-order logic. We focus specifically on methods to learn theories that can be expressed in the Multi-Entity Bayesian Network (MEBN) probabilistic logic. MEBN logic is sufficiently general to represent a probability distribution over interpretations of any set of statements that can be expressed in firstorder predicate calculus. Bayesian inference provides both a proof theory for combining prior knowledge with observational evidence to derive plausible conclusions and a learning theory for refining a representation as observational evidence accrues. A formal specification is provided for the MEBN logic. A semantics is based on random variables provides a logically coherent foundation for open world reasoning. The paper describes modifications of standard Bayesian learning methods to handle the repeated structures that occur in MEBN theories. Methods are given for specifying domain knowledge as MEBN fragments with structure and parameter prior distributions.

View PDFchevron_right
Extending Bayesian Networks to the Open-Universe Case
Brian Milch
View PDFchevron_right
A language for construction of belief networks
Robert P Goldman

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1993

We describe a method for incrementally constructing belief networks, which are directed acyclic graph representations for probability distributions. We have developed a networkconstruction language (FRAIW), which is similar to a fonvardchaining language using data dependencies but has additional features for specifying distributions. A particularly important feature of this language is that it allows the user to conveniently specify conditional probability matrices using stereotyped models of intercausal interaction. Using FRAIW, one can define parameterized classes of probabilistic models. These parameterized models make it possible to apply probabilistic reasoning to problems for which it is impractical to have a single large, static model.

View PDFchevron_right

References (74)

  1. Alghamdi, G., Laskey, K.B., Wright, E., Barbara, D., and Chang, K.-C., 2005. "Modeling Insider Behavior Using Multi-Entity Bayesian Networks." 10th Annual Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium.
  2. Bacchus, F., 1990. "Representing and Reasoning with Probabilistic Knowledge: A Logical Approach to Probabilities." Boston, MA, MIT Press.
  3. Bacchus, F., Grove, A., Halpern, J.Y., and Koller, D., 1997. "From statistical knowledge bases to degrees of belief." Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 87: 75-143
  4. Bangsø, O., Langseth, H., and Nielsen, T., 2001. "Structural Learning in Object Oriented Domains." FLAIRS.
  5. Bangsø, O. and Wuillemin, P.H., 2000. Object Oriented Bayesian Networks: A Framework for Topdown Specification of Large Bayesian Networks and Repetitive Structures. Technical Report CIT-87.2-00-obphw1. Aalborg: Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University Billingsley, P., 1995. Probability and Measure. New York, NY: Wiley.
  6. Binford, T. and Levitt, T.S., 2003. "Evidential reasoning for object recognition." IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 25(7), pp. 837-51.
  7. Boutilier, C., N. Friedman, et al., 1996. Context Specific Independence in Bayesian Networks. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference, San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann.
  8. Brachman, R.J., Fikes, R.E., and Levesque, H.J., 1983. "KRYPTON: A Functional Approach to Knowledge Representation." IEEE Computer Society, 16(10), pp. 67-73.
  9. Buntine, W.L., 1994. "Operations for Learning with Graphical Models." Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2, pp. 159-225.
  10. Charniak, E. and Goldman, R.P., 1993. "A Bayesian Model of Plan Recognition." Artificial Intelligence, 64, pp. 53-79.
  11. Costa, P., 2005. Bayesian Semantics for the Semantic Web. Doctoral Dissertation, Fairfax, VA: School of Information Technology and Engineering, George Mason University. http://hdl.handle.net/1920/455.
  12. Costa, P., Laskey, K.B., Fung, F., Pool, M., Takikawa, M., and Wright, E., 2005. "MEBN Logic: A Key Enabler for Network-Centric Warfare." 10th Annual Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium.
  13. Cowell, R.G., 1999. Probabilistic Networks and Expert Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  14. D'Ambrosio, B., 1991. "Local expression languages for probabilistic dependency." Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference, San Mateo, California, Morgan Kaufmann.
  15. D'Ambrosio, B., Takikawa, M., Fitzgerald, J., Upper, D., and Mahoney, S.M., 2001. "Security situation assessment and response evaluation (SSARE)." DARPA Information Survivability Conference & Exposition II, IEEE Computer Society.
  16. Davis, E., 1990. Representations of Commonsense Knowledge. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann.
  17. de Finetti, B., 1934/1990. Theory of Probability: A Critical Introductory Treatment. 2 nd English Edition, translated by A. Machi and A.F.M. Smith, New York: Wiley.
  18. De Raedt, L. and Kersting, K., 2003. "Probabilistic Logic Learning." ACM-SIGKDD Explorations: Special Issue on Multi-Relational Data Mining, 5(1), pp. 31-48.
  19. DeGroot, M. H., 1982. "Lindley's Paradox: Comment " Journal of the American Statistical Association 77(378), pp. 336-339.
  20. DeGroot, M.H. and Schervish, M.J., 2002. Probability and Statistics. Boston, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
  21. Elliott, R.J., Aggoun, L., and Moore, J.B., 1995. Hidden Markov Models: Estimation and Control. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 12/2/07
  22. Enderton, H.B., 2001. A Mathematical Introduction to Logic: Harcourt Academic Press.
  23. Frege, G., 1879/1967. Begriffsschrift. Translated in J. Heijenoort (ed), From Frege to Gödel, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  24. Fung, F., Laskey, K.B., Pool, M., Takikawa, M., and Wright, E., 2005. "PLASMA: Combining Predicate Logic and Probability for Information Fusion and Decision Support." AAAI Spring Symposium on Decision Support in a Changing World.
  25. Geiger, D. and Heckerman, D., 1991. "Advances in Probabilistic Reasoning." Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference, San Mateo, CA, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  26. Getoor, L., Friedman, N., Koller, D., and Pfeffer, A., 2001. "Learning Probabilistic Relational Models," in Relational Data Mining. Saso Dzeroski and Nada Lavrac (ed.), Berlin: Springer- Verlag.
  27. Getoor, L., Koller, D., Taskar, B., and Friedman, N., 2000. "Learning Probabilistic Relational Models with Structural Uncertainty." ICML-2000 Workshop on Attribute-Value and Relational Learning:Crossing the Boundaries, Standford, California.
  28. Ghahramani, Z., 1998. "Learning Dynamic Bayesian Networks," in Adaptive Processing of Sequences and Data Structures: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. C.L. Giles and M. Gori (eds.), Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 168-97.
  29. Gilks, W., Thomas, A., and Spiegelhalter, D.J., 1994. "A language and program for complex Bayesian modeling." The Statistician, 43, pp. 169-78.
  30. Glesner, S. and Koller, D., 1995. "Constructing Flexible Dynamic Belief Networks from First- Order Probabilistic Knowledge Bases." ECSQARU, pp. 217-26.
  31. Grenander, U., 1996. Elements of Pattern Theory. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  32. Gruber, T.R., 1993. "A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications." Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), pp. 199-220.
  33. Halpern, J.Y., 1991. "An Analysis of First-Order Logics of Probability." Artificial Intelligence, 46(May), pp. 311-50.
  34. Heckerman, D., Meek, C., and Koller, D., 2004. Probabilistic Models for Relational Data. MSR- TR-2004-30. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation
  35. Howson, C. and Urbach, P., 1993. Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
  36. IET, 2004. "Quddity*Suite Technical Guide." Arlington, VA: Information Extraction and Transport, Inc.
  37. ISO/IEC, 2007. Information technology -Common Logic (CL) -A framework for a family of logic-based languages," ISO/IEC 24707:2007 -Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardisation.
  38. Jaeger, M., 1998. "Reasoning About Infinite Random Structures with Relational Bayesian Networks." Proceedings of the 6th International Conference (KR '98).
  39. Jaeger, M., 2001. "Complex Probabilistic Modeling with Recursive Relational Bayesian Networks." Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 32, pp. 179-220.
  40. Jaynes, E.T., 2003. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  41. Jensen, F.V., 2001. Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  42. Kersting, K. and De Raedt, L., 2001. "Adaptive Bayesian Logic Programs." Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP 2001), Springer- Verlag.
  43. Koller, D. and Pfeffer, A., 1997. "Object-Oriented Bayesian Networks." Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference, San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann. 12/2/07
  44. Langseth, H. and Nielsen, T., 2003. "Fusion of Domain Knowledge with Data for Structured Learning in Object-Oriented Domains." Journal of Machine Learning Research, 4, pp. 339- 68.
  45. Laskey, K.B. and Costa, P., 2005. "Of Klingons and Starships: Bayesian Logic for the 23rd Century." Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the Twenty-first Conference, Arlington, VA, AUAI Press.
  46. Laskey, K.B., D'Ambrosio, B., Levitt, T.S., and Mahoney, S.M., 2000. "Limited Rationality in Action: Decision Support for Military Situation Assessment." Minds and Machines, Vol. 10: 53-77
  47. Laskey, K.B. and Mahoney, S.M., 1997. "Network Fragments: Representing Knowledge for Constructing Probabilistic Models." Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference, San Mateo, CA, Morgan Kaufmann.
  48. Laskey, K.B., Mahoney, S.M., and Wright, E., 2001. "Hypothesis Management in Situation- Specific Network Construction." Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference, San Mateo, CA, Morgan Kaufman.
  49. Lauritzen, S., 1996. Graphical Models. Oxford: Oxford Science Publications.
  50. Levitt, T.S., Winter, C.L., Turner, C., J., Chestek, R.A., Ettinger, G.J., and Sayre, S.M., 1995. "Bayesian Inference-Based Fusion of Radar Imagery, Military Forces and Tactical Terrain Models in the Image Exploitation System/Balanced Technology Initiative." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 42.
  51. Lin, Y. and Druzdzel, M.J., 1997. "Computational Advantages of Relevance Reasoning in Bayesian Belief Networks." Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference, San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann.
  52. Mahoney, S.M., 1999. Network Fragments. Faifax, VA: School of Information Technology and Engineering, George Mason University.
  53. Mahoney, S.M. and Laskey, K.B., 1998. "Constructing Situation Specific Networks." Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference, San Mateo, CA, Morgan Kaufmann.
  54. Mahoney, S.M. and Laskey, K.B., 1999. "Representing and Combining Partially Specified Conditional Probability Tables." Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference, San Mateo, CA, Morgan Kaufmann.
  55. Milch, B., Marthi, B., Russell, S., Sontag, D., Ong, D.L., and Kolobov, A., 2005. "BLOG: Probabilistic Models with Unknown Objects." Proceedings of the Nineteenth Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  56. Murphy, K., 1998. Dynamic Bayesian Networks: Representation, Inference and Learning. Berkeley, CA: Computer Science Division, University of California.
  57. Natarajan, S., Tadepalli, P., Altendorf, E., Dietterich, T.G., Fern, A., and Restificar, A., 2005. "Learning First-Order Probabilistic Models with Combining Rules." Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning.
  58. Neapolitan, R.E., 2003. Learning Bayesian Networks. New York: Prentice Hall.
  59. Ngo, L. and Haddawy, P., 1997. "Answering Queries from Context-Sensitive Probabilistic Knowledge Bases." Theoretical Computer Science, 171, pp. 147-77.
  60. Pearl, J., 1988. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
  61. Peirce, C.S., 1885. "On the Algebra of Logic." American Journal of Mathematics, 7, pp. 180-202.
  62. Pfeffer, A., 2000. Probabilistic Reasoning for Complex Systems. Stanford, CA, Stanford University.
  63. Pfeffer, A., 2001. "IBAL: An Integrated Bayesian Agent Language." Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI).
  64. Poole, D., 1993. "Probabilistic Horn Abduction and Bayesian Networks." Artificial Intelligence, 64(1), pp. 81-129.
  65. Poole, D., 2003. "First-Order Probabilistic Inference." Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  66. Russell, S. and Norvig, P., 2002. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  67. Sato, T., 1998. "Modeling Scientific Theories as PRISM Programs." ECAI98 Workshop on Machine Discovery.
  68. Savage, L.J., 1954. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.
  69. Sowa, J.F., 2000. "Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations," Brooks-Cole Publishers.
  70. Spiegelhalter, D.J., Thomas, A., and Best, N., 1996. "Computation on Graphical Models." Bayesian Statistics, 5, pp. 407-25.
  71. Stone, L.D., Barlow, C.A., and Corwin, T.L., 1999. Bayesian Multiple Target Tracking. Boston, MA: Artech House.
  72. Tarski, A., 1944. "The Semantical Concept of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4.
  73. Wellman, M.P., Breese, J.S., and Goldman, R.P., 1992. "From knowledge bases to decision models." The Knoweldge Engineering Review, 7(1), pp. 35-53.
  74. Whittaker, J., 1990. Graphical Models in Applied Multivariate Statistics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Related papers

Multi-entity bayesian networks without multi-tears
Kathryn Laskey

Draft Version, 2005

An introduction is provided to Multi-Entity Bayesian Networks (MEBN), a logic system that integrates First Order Logic (FOL) with Bayesian probability theory. MEBN extends ordinary Bayesian networks to allow representation of graphical models with repeated sub-structures. Knowledge is encoded as a collection of Bayesian network fragments (MFrags) that can be instantiated and combined to form highly complex situation-specific Bayesian networks. A MEBN theory (MTheory) implicitly represents a joint probability distribution over possibly unbounded numbers of hypotheses, and uses Bayesian learning to refine a knowledge base as observations accrue. MEBN provides a logical foundation for the emerging collection of highly expressive probability-based languages. A running example illustrates the representation and reasoning power of the MEBN formalism.

View PDFchevron_right
Knowledge Representation with Possibilistic and Certain Bayesian Networks
Adel M. Alimi

Possibilistic logic and Bayesian networks have provided advantageous methodologies and techniques for computerbased knowledge representation. This paper proposes a framework that combines these two disciplines to exploit their own advantages in uncertain and imprecise knowledge representation problems. The framework proposed is a possibilistic logic based one in which Bayesian nodes and their properties are represented by local necessity-valued knowledge base. Data in properties are interpreted as set of valuated formulas. In our contribution possibilistic Bayesian networks have a qualitative part and a quantitative part, represented by local knowledge bases. The general idea is to study how a fusion of these two formalisms would permit representing compact way to solve efficiently problems for knowledge representation. We show how to apply possibility and necessity measures to the problem of knowledge representation with large scale data.

View PDFchevron_right
Knowledge Representation with Possibilstic and Certain Bayesian Networks
Mohamed Nazih OMRI

2005

Possibilistic logic and Bayesian networks have provided advantageous methodologies and techniques for computerbased knowledge representation. This paper proposes a framework that combines these two disciplines to exploit their own advantages in uncertain and imprecise knowledge representation problems. The framework proposed is a possibilistic logic based one in which Bayesian nodes and their properties are represented by local necessity-valued knowledge base. Data in properties are interpreted as set of valuated formulas. In our contribution possibilistic Bayesian networks have a qualitative part and a quantitative part, represented by local knowledge bases. The general idea is to study how a fusion of these two formalisms would permit representing compact way to solve efficiently problems for knowledge representation. We show how to apply possibility and necessity measures to the problem of knowledge representation with large scale data.

View PDFchevron_right
First-order Bayesian logic
Kathryn Laskey

2005

Uncertainty is a fundamental and irreducible aspect of our knowledge about the world. Until recently, classical first-order logic has reigned as the de facto standard logical foundation for artificial intelligence. The lack of a built-in, semantically grounded capability for reasoning under uncertainty renders classical first-order logic inadequate for many important classes of problems. General-purpose languages are beginning to emerge for which the fundamental logical basis is probability. Increasingly expressive probabilistic languages demand a theoretical foundation that fully integrates classical first-order logic and probability. In first-order Bayesian logic (FOBL), probability distributions are defined over interpretations of classical first-order axiom systems. Predicates and functions of a classical first-order theory correspond to a random variables in the corresponding first-order Bayesian theory. This is a natural correspondence, given that random variables are formalized in mathematical statistics as measurable functions on a probability space. A formal system called Multi-Entity Bayesian Networks (MEBN) is presented for composing distributions on interpretations by instantiating and combining parameterized fragments of directed graphical models. A construction is given of a MEBN theory that assigns a non-zero probability to any satisfiable sentence in classical first-order logic. By conditioning this distribution on consistent sets of sentences, FOBL can represent a probability distribution over interpretations of any finitely axiomatizable first-order theory, as well as over interpretations of infinite axiom sets when a limiting distribution exists. FOBL is inherently open, having the ability to incorporate new axioms into existing theories, and to modify probabilities in the light of evidence. Bayesian inference provides both a proof theory for combining prior knowledge with observations, and a learning theory for refining a representation as evidence accrues. The results of this paper provide a logical foundation for the rapidly evolving literature on first-order Bayesian knowledge representation, and point the way toward Bayesian languages suitable for generalpurpose knowledge representation and computing. Because FOBL contains classical first-order logic as a deterministic subset, it is a natural candidate as a universal representation for integrating domain ontologies expressed in languages based on classical first-order logic or subsets thereof.

View PDFchevron_right
HUGIN - A Shell for Building Bayesian Belief Universes for Expert Systems
Finn Jensen

1989

Causal probabilistic networks have proved to be a useful knowledge representation tool for modelling domains where causal relations in a broad sense are a natural way of relating domain objects and where uncertainty is inherited in these relations. This paper outlines an implementation the HUGIN shell -for handling a domain model expressed by a causal probabilistic network. The only topological restriction imposed on the network is that, it must not contain any directed loops. The approach is illustrated step by step by solving a. genetic breeding problem. A graph representation of the domain model is interactively created by using instances of the basic network componentsnodes and arcs-as building blocks. This structure, together with the quantitative relations between nodes and their immediate causes expressed as conditional probabilities, are automatically transformed into a tree structure, a junction tree. Here a computationally efficient and conceptually simple algebra of Bayesian belief universes supports incorporation of new evidence, propagation of information, and calculation of revised beliefs in the states of the nodes in the network. Finally, as an exam ple of a real world application, MUN1N an expert system for electromyography is discussed.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Cognitive Science
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Semantics
  • Proof Theory
  • AI Planning (Artificial Intellig...
  • Probability Distribution & Appli...
  • First-Order Logic
  • Bayesian Network
  • First Order Logic
  • REASONING UNDER UNCERTAINTY
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved