1 / 24

Reasoning Under Uncertainty

Reasoning Under Uncertainty. Kostas Kontogiannis E&CE 457. Terminology. The units of belief follow the same as in probability theory If the sum of all evidence is represented by e and d is the diagnosis (hypothesis) under consideration, then the probability

tateb
Download Presentation

Reasoning Under Uncertainty

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Reasoning Under Uncertainty Kostas Kontogiannis E&CE 457

  2. Terminology • The units of belief follow the same as in probability theory • If the sum of all evidence is represented by e and d is the diagnosis (hypothesis) under consideration, then the probability P(d|e) is interpreted as the probabilistic measure of belief or strength that the hypothesis d holds given the evidence e. • In this context: • P(d) : a-priori probability (the probability hypothesis d occurs • P(e|d) : the probability that the evidence represented by e are present given that the hypothesis (i.e. disease) holds

  3. Analyzing and Using Sequential Evidence • Let e1 be a set of observations to date, and s1 be some new piece of data. Furthermore, let e be the new set of observations once s1 has been added to e1. Then P(di | e) = P(s1 | di & e1) P(di | e1) Sum (P(s1 | dj & e1) P(dj | e1)) • P(d|e) = x is interpreted: IF you observe symptom e THEN conclude hypothesis d with probability x

  4. Requirements • It is practically impossible to obtain measurements for P(sk|dj) for each or the pieces of data sk, in e, and for the inter-relationships of the sk within each possible hypothesis dj • Instead, we would like to obtain a measurement of P(di | e) in terms of P(di | sk), where e is the composite of all the observed sk

  5. Advantages of Using Rules in Uncertainty Reasoning • The use of general knowledge and abstractions in the problem domain • The use of judgmental knowledge • Ease of modification and fine-tuning • Facilitated search for potential inconsistencies and contradictions in the knowledge base • Straightforward mechanisms for explaining decisions • An augmented instructional capability

  6. Measuring Uncertainty • Probability theory • Confirmation • Classificatory: “The evidence e confirms the hypothesis h” • Comparative: “e1 confirms h more strongly than e2 confirms h” or “e confirms h1 more strongly than e confirms h2” • Quantitative: “e confirms h with strength x” usually denoted as C[h,e]. In this context C[h,e] is not equal to 1-C[~h,e] • Fuzzy sets

  7. Model of Evidential Strength • Quantification scheme for modeling inexact reasoning • The concepts of belief and disbelief as units of measurement • The terminology is based on: • MB[h,e] = x “the measure of increased belief in the hypothesis h, based on the evidence e, is x” • MD[h,e] = y “the measure of increased disbelief in the hypothesis h, based on the evidence e, is y” • The evidence e need not be an observed event, but may be a hypothesis subject to confirmation • For example, MB[h,e] = 0.7 reflects the extend to which the expert’s belief that h is true is increased by the knowledge that e is true • In this sense MB[h,e] = 0 means that the expert has no reason to increase his/her belief in h on the basis of e

  8. Probability and Evidential Model • In accordance with subjective probability theory, P(h) reflects expert’s belief in h at any given time. Thus 1 - P(h) reflects expert’s disbelief regarding the truth of h • If P(h|e) > P(h), then it means that the observation of e increases the expert’s belief in h, while decreasing his/her disbelief regarding the truth of h • In fact, the proportionate decrease in disbelief is given by the following ratio P(h|e) - P(h) 1 - P(h) • The ratio is called the measure of increased belief in h resulting from the observation of e (i.e. MB[h,e])

  9. Probability and Evidential Model • On the other hand, if P(h|e) < P(h), then the observation of e would decrease the expert’s belief in h, while increasing his/her disbelief regarding the truth of h. The proportionate decrease in this case is P(h) - P(h|e) P(h) • Note that since one piece of evidence can not both favor and disfavor a single hypothesis, that is when MB[h,e] >0 MD[h,e] = 0, and when MD[h,e] >0 then MB[h,e] = 0. Furthermore, when P(h|e) = P(h), the evidence is independent of the hypothesis and MB[h,e] = MD[h,e] = 0

  10. Definitions of Evidential Model 1 if P(h) = 1 max[P(h|e), P(h)] - P(h) otherwise 1 - P(h) { MB[h,e] = { 1 if P(h) = 0 min[P(h|e), P(h)] - P(h) otherwise - P(h) MD[h,e] = CF[h,e] = MB[h,e] - MD[h,e]

  11. Characteristics of Belief Measures • Range of degrees: 0 <= MB[h,e] <= 1 0 <= MD[h,e] <= 1 -1 <= CF[h,e] <= +1 • Evidential strength of mutually exclusive hypotheses • If h is shown to be certain P(h|e) = 1 MB[[h,e] = 1 MD[h,e] = 0 CF[h,e] = 1 • If the negation of h is shown to be certain P(~h|e) = 1 MB[h,e] = 0 MD[h,e] = 1 CF[h,e] = -1

  12. Characteristics of Belief Measures • Suggested limits and ranges: -1 = CF[h,~h] <= CF[h,e] <= C[h,h] = +1 • Note: MB[~h,e] = 1 if and only if MD[h,e] = 1 • For mutually exclusive hypotheses h1 and h2, if MB[h1,e] = 1, then MD[h2,e] = 1 • Lack of evidence: • MB[h,e] = 0 if h is not confirmed by e (i.e. e and h are independent or e disconfirms h) • MD[h,e] = 0 if h is not disconfirmed by e (i.e. e and h are independent or e confirms h) • CF[h,e] = 0 if e neither confirms nor disconfirms h (i.e. e and h are independent)

  13. More Characteristics of Belief Measures • CF[h,e] + CF[~h,e] =/= 1 • MB[h,e] = MD[~h,e]

  14. The Belief Measure Model as an Approximation • Suppose e = s1 & s2 and that evidence e confirms d. Then CF[d, e] = MB[d,e] - 0 = P(d|e) - P(d) = 1 - P(d) = P(d| s1&s2) - P(d) 1 - P(d) which means we still need to keep probability measurements and moreover, we need to keep MBs and MDs

  15. Defining Criteria for Approximation • MB[h, e+] increases toward 1 as confirming evidence is found, equaling 1 if and only f a piece of evidence logically implies h with certainty • MD[h, e-] increases toward 1 as disconfirming evidence is found, equaling 1 if and only if a piece of evidence logically implies ~h with certainty • CF[h, e-] <= CF[h, e- & e+] <= CF[h, e+] • MB[h,e+] = 1 then MD[h, e-] = 0 and CF[h, e+] = 1 • MD[h, e-] = 1 then MB[h, e+] = 0 and CF[h, e-] = -1 • The case where MB[h, e+] = MD[h, e-] = 1 is contradictory and hence CF is undefined

  16. Defining Criteria for Approximation • If s1 & s2 indicates an ordered observation of evidence, first s1 then s2 then: • MB[h, s1&s2] = MB[h, s2&s1] • MD[h, s1&s2] = MD[h, s2&s1] • CF[h, s1&s2] = CF[h, s2&s1] • If s2 denotes a piece of potential evidence, the truth or falsity of which is unknown: • MB[h, s1&s2] = MB[h, s1] • MD[h, s1&s2] = MD[h, s1] • CF[h, s1&s2] = CF[h, s1]

  17. Combining Functions { 0 If MD[h, s1&s2] = 1 MB[h, s1&s2] = MB[h, s1] + MB[h, s2](1 - MB[h, s1]) otherwise { 0 If MB[h, s1&s2] = 1 MD[h, s1&s2] = MD[h, s1] + MD[h, s2](1 - MD[h, s1]) otherwise MB[h1 or h2, e] = max(MB[h1, e], MB[h2, e]) MD[h1 or h2, e] = min(MD[h1, e], MD[h2, e]) MB[h, s1] = MB’[h, s1] * max(0, CF[s1, e]) MD[h,s1] = MD’[h, s1] * max(0, CF[s1, e])

  18. Probabilistic Reasoning and Certainty Factors (Revisited) • Of methods for utilizing evidence to select diagnoses or decisions, probability theory has the firmest appeal • The usefulness of Bayes’ theorem is limited by practical difficulties, related to the volume of data required to compute the a-priori probabilities used in the theorem. • On the other hand CFs and MBs, MDs offer an intuitive, yet informal, way of dealing with reasoning under uncertainty. • The MYCIN model tries to combine these two areas (probabilistic, CFs) by providing a semi-formal bridge (theory) between the two areas

  19. A Simple Probability Model(The MYCIN Model Prelude) • Consider a finite population of n members. Members of the population may possess one or more of several properties that define subpopulations, or sets. • Properties of interest might be e1 or e2, which may be evidence for or against a diagnosis h. • The number of individuals with a certain property say e, will be denoted as n(e), and the number of two properties e1 and e2 will be denoted as n(e1&e2). • Probabilities can be computed as ratios

  20. A Simple Probability Model (Cont.) • From the above we observe that: n(e1 & h) * n = n(e & h) * n n(e) * n(h) = n(h) * n(e) • So a convenient form of Bayes’ theorem is: P(h|e) = P(e|h) P(h) P(e) • If we consider that two pieces of evidence e1 and e2 bear on a hypothesis h, and that if we assume e1 and e2 are independent then the following ratios hold n(e1 & e2) = n(e1) * n(e2) n n n and n(e1 & e2 & h) = n(e1 & h) * n(e2 & h) n(h) n(h) n(h)

  21. Simple Probability Model • With the above the right-hand side of the Bayes’ Theorem becomes: P(e1 & e2 | h) = P(e1 | h) * P(e2 | h) P(e1 & e2) P(e1) P(e2) • The idea is to ask the experts to estimate the ratios P(ei|h)/P(h) and P(h), and from these compute P(h | e1 & e2 & … & en) • The ratios P(ei|h)/P(h) should be in the range [0,1/P(h)] • In this context MB[h,e] = 1 when all individuals with e have disease h, and MD[h,e] = 1 when no individual with e has h

  22. Adding New Evidence • Serially adjusting the probability of a hypothesis with new evidence against the hypothesis: P(h | e’’) = P(ei | h) * P(h | e’) P(ei) • or new evidence favoring the hypothesis: P(h | e’’) = 1 - P(ei | ~h) * [ 1 - P(h | e’)] P(ei)

  23. Measure of Beliefs and Probabilities • We can define then the MB and MD as: MB[h,e] = 1 - P(e | ~h] P(e) and MD[h,e] = 1 - P(e | h) P(e)

  24. The MYCIN Model • MB[h1 & h2, e] = min(MB[h1,e], MB[h2,e]) • MD[h1 & h2, e] = max(MD[h1,e], MD[h2,e]) • MB[h1 or h2, e) = max(MB[h1,e], MB[h2,e]) • MD[h1 or h2, e) = min(MD[h1,e], MDh2,e]) • 1 - MD[h, e1 & e2] = (1 - MD[h,e1])*(1-MD[h,e2]) • 1- MB[h, e1 & e2] = (1 - MB[h,e1])*(1-MB[h, e2]) • CF(h, ef & ea) = MB[h, ef] - MD[h,ea]

More Related