This paper presents a simple framework for Horn-clause abduction, with probabilities associated with hypotheses. The framework incorporates assumptions about the rule base and independence assumptions amongst hypotheses. It is shown how any probabilistic knowledge representable in a discrete Bayesian belief network can be represented in this framework. The main contribution is in finding a relationship between logical and probabilistic notions of evidential reasoning. This provides a useful representation language in its own right, providing a compromise between heuristic and epistemic adequacy. It also shows how Bayesian networks can be extended beyond a propositional language. This paper also shows how a language with only (unconditionally) independent hypotheses can represent any probabilistic knowledge, and argues that it is better to invent new hypotheses to explain dependence rather than having to worry about dependence in the language. Scholar, Canadian Institute for Advanced...

The problem of abduction can be characterized as finding the best explanation of a set of data. In this paper we focus on one type of abduction in which the best explanation is the most plausible combination of hypotheses that explains all the data. We then present several computational complexity results demonstrating that this type of abduction is intractable (NP-hard) in general. In particular, choosing between incompatible hypotheses, reasoning about cancellation effects among hypotheses, and satisfying the maximum plausibility requirement are major factors leading to intractability. We also identify a tractable, but restricted, class of abduction problems. Thanks to B. Chandrasekaran, Ashok Goel, Jack Smith, and Jon Sticklen for their comments on the numerous versions of this paper. The referees have also made a substantial contribution. Any remaining errors are our responsibility, of course. This research has been supported in part by the National Library of Medicine, grant LM-...

If one wants to use logic to build a diagnostic system, then it is not a matter of "just axiomatising" the domain; we have to understand how to use logic for diagnosis. We need some models of what diagnosis is, in order to be able to implement diagnostic systems. This paper considers 3 different "logical " definitions of diagnosis. Each of these are presented in a uniform framework of hypothetical reasoning where the user provides the possible hypotheses. These are compared as to the sort of knowledge that we need to provide them, and in their expressibilty. It seems as though there is no one framework which can claim to be the logical definition of diagnosis. Each of these approaches has been implemented in the Theorist system, and used on a number of domains. This paper concentrates on the case where we have fault models. 1 Introduction Diagnosis is a problem of trying to find what is wrong with some system based on knowledge about the design /structure of the system, possible malf...

One of the problems of the recent approaches to problem solving based on deep knowledge is the lack of a formal treatment of incomplete knowledge. However, dealing with incomplete models is fundamental to many realworld domains. In this paper we propose a formal theory of causal diagnostic reasoning, dealing with different forms of incompleteness both in the general causal knowledge (missing or abstracted knowledge) and in the data describing a specific case under examination. Different forms of nonmonotonic reasoning (hypothetical and circumscriptive reasoning) are used in order to draw and confirm conclusions from incomplete knowledge. Multiple fault solutions are treated in a natural way and parsimony criteria arc used to rank alternative solutions. 1.

A Bayesian network is a compact, expressive representation of uncertain relationships among parameters in a domain. In this article, I introduce basic methods for computing with Bayesian networks, starting with the simple idea of summing the probabilities of events of interest. The article introduces major current methods for exact computation, briefly surveys approximation methods, and closes with a brief discussion of open issues.

Abstract—Abductive inference in Bayesian belief networks (BBNs) is intended as the process of generating the most probable configurations given observed evidence. When we are interested only in a subset of the network’s variables, this problem is called partial abductive inference. Both problems are NP-hard and so exact computation is not always possible. In this paper, a genetic algorithm is used to perform partial abductive inference in BBNs. The main contribution is the introduction of new genetic operators designed specifically for this problem. By using these genetic operators, we try to take advantage of the calculations previously carried out, when a new individual is evaluated. The algorithm is tested using a widely used Bayesian network and a randomly generated one and then compared with a previous genetic algorithm based on classical genetic operators. From the experimental results, we conclude that the new genetic operators preserve the accuracy of the previous algorithm, and also reduce the number of operations performed during the evaluation of individuals. The performance of the genetic algorithm is, thus, improved. Index Terms—Abductive inference, bayesian belief networks, evolutionary computation, genetic operators, most probable explanation, probabilistic reasoning. I.

This paper presents a simple logical framework for abduction, with probabilities associated with hypotheses. The language is an extension to pure Prolog, and it has straight-forward implementations using branch and bound search with either logic-programming technology or ATMS technology. The main focus of this paper is arguing for a form of representational adequacy of this very simple system for diagnostic reasoning. It is shown how it can represent model-based knowledge, with and without faults, and with and without non-intermittency assumptions. It is also shown how this representation can represent any probabilistic knowledge representable in a Bayesian belief network. 1

Abstract not found

This paper presents a simple framework for Hornclause abduction, with probabilities associated with hypotheses. It is shown how this representation can represent any probabilistic knowledge representable in a Bayesian belief network. The main contributions are in finding a relationship between logical and probabilistic notions of evidential reasoning. This can be used as a basis for a new way to implement Bayesian Networks that allows for approximations to the value of the posterior probabilities, and also points to a way that Bayesian networks can be extended beyond a propositional language. 1

The general task of abduction is to infer a hypothesis that best explains a set of data. A typical subtask of this is to synthesize a composite hypothesis that best explains the entire data from elementary hypotheses which can explain portions of it. The synthesis subtask of abduction is computationally expensive, more so in the presence of certain types of interactions between the elementary hypotheses. In this paper, we first formulate the abduction task as a nonmonotonic constrained-optimization problem. We then consider a special version of the general abduction task that is linear and monotonic. Next, we describe a neural network based on the Hopfield model of computation for the special version of the abduction task. The connections in this network are symmetric, the energy function contains product forms, and the minimization of this function requires a network of order greater than two. We then discuss another neural architecture which is composed of functional module...