Journal of Intelligent Information Systems

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 319–363 | Cite as

Qualitative reasoning with imprecise probabilities

  • Didier Dubois
  • Lluis Godo
  • Ramon López De Màntaras
  • Henri Prade
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the possibility of performing automated reasoning in probabilistic knowledge bases when probabilities are expressed by means of linguistic quantifiers. Data are expressed in terms of ill-known conditional probabilities represented by linguistic terms. Each linguistic term is expressed as a prescribed interval of proportions. Then instead of propagating numbers, qualitative terms are propagated in accordance with the numerical interpretation of these terms. The quantified syllogism, modeling the chaining of probabilistic rules, is studied in this context. It is shown that a qualitative counterpart of this syllogism makes sense and is fairly independent of the thresholds defining the linguistically meaningful intervals, provided that these threshold values remain in accordance with the intuition. The inference power is less than a full-fledged probabilistic constraint propagation device but corresponds better to what could be thought of as commonsense probabilistic reasoning. Suggestions that may improve the inferencing power in the qualitative setting are proposed.

Keywords

conditional probabilities interval-valued probabilities qualitative probabilities linguistic quantifiers syllogistic reasoning nonmonotonic reasoning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, E.W. (1975).The Logic of Conditionals, Dordrecht Riedel.Google Scholar
  2. Aleliunas, R. (1988). A new normative theory of probabilistic log. InProceedings of 7th Biennial Conf. of Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence (AICSCSI'88) (R. Goedel, ed.), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, June 6–10, 67–74.Google Scholar
  3. Amarger, S., Dubois, D., and Prade, H. (1991a). Handling imprecisely-known conditional probabilities.In Proc. of the UNICOM Seminar “AI and Computer Power—The Impact on Statistics. Brunel Conf. Center, West London, March 13–14, 1991. 1–33, Final proceedings to be published by Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Amarger, S., Dubois, D., and Prade, H. (1991b). Constraint propagation with imprecise conditional probabilities. InProc. of the 7th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Los Angeles, CA, July 13–15, 26–34.Google Scholar
  5. Bacchus, F. (1990).Representing and Reasoning with Probabilistic Knowledge, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boole, G. (1854).The Laws of Thought, MacMillan, New York. (Reprinted by Dover, New York, 1958.)Google Scholar
  7. De Morgan, A. (1966). “On the Syllogism” and Other Logical Writings. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. (First published between 1846 and 1868.)Google Scholar
  8. Dubois, D., and Prade, H. (1988). On fuzzy syllogisms.Computational Intelligence (Canada),4-2, 171–179.Google Scholar
  9. Dubois, D., and Prade, H. (1991). “Conditional objects and non-monotonic reasoning. InProc. of the 2nd Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'91). Cambridge, MA., April 22–25, 175–185.Google Scholar
  10. Dubois, D., Prade, H., and Toucas, J.M., (1990). Inference with imprecise numerical quantifiers. In Ras, Z.W., and Zemankova, M. (Eds.),Intelligent Systems—State of the Art and Future Direction. Ellis Horwood, 52–72.Google Scholar
  11. Geffner, H. (1992),Default Reasoning: Causal and Conditional Theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ginsberg, M.L. (1988). “Multivalued logics,”Computational Intelligence, 4. pp. 265–316.Google Scholar
  13. Goodman, I.R., Gupta, M.M., Nguyen, H.T., and Rogers, G.S. (Eds.) (1991).Conditional Logic in Expert Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Güntzer, U., Kieling, W., and Thöne, H. (1991). New directions for uncertainty reasoning in deductive databases. InProc. ACM SIGMOD Inter. Conf. on Management of Data, Denver, 178–187.Google Scholar
  15. Heinsohn, J. (1991). A hybrid approach for modeling uncertainty in terminological logics. In Kruse, R., Siegel, P. (Eds.),Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Uncertainty (Proc. of the Europ. Conf. ECSQAU, Marseille, October, 1991), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 548, Berlin Springer Verlag, 198–205. (Complete version: Research Report n° RR-91-24, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH, Saarbrücken, Germany, 1991).Google Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (1980).Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Neufeld, E. (1990). A probabilistic commonsense reasoner.Int. J. of Intelligent Systems, 5. 565–594.Google Scholar
  18. Pearl, J. (1988).Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  19. Peterson, P. (1979), On the logic of few, many and most.Notre Dame J. Formal Logic, 20, 155–179.Google Scholar
  20. Quinlan, J.R. (1983). INFERNO, a cautious approach to uncertain inference.The Computer Journal, 26, 255–269.Google Scholar
  21. Shapiro, S.C. (1979). Numerical quantifiers and their use in reasoning with negative information. InProc. of the 6th Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'79), Tokyo, Japan 791–796.Google Scholar
  22. Spies, M. (1989).Syllogistic Inference under Uncertainty. München, Germany: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  23. Thöne, H., Güntzer, U., and Kieling, W. (1991). Probabilistic reasoning with facts and rules in deductive databases. In Kruse, R., Siegel, P. (Eds.),Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Uncertainty (Proc. of the Europ. Conf. ECSQAU, Marseille, October, 1991), Lecture Notes in Computr Science, 548, Springer Verlag, Berling, 333–337.Google Scholar
  24. Thöne, H., Güntzer, U., and Kieling, W. (1992). Towards precision of probabilistic bounds propagation. In Dubois, D., Wellman, M.P., D'Ambrosio, B., and Smets, P. (Eds.),Proc. of the 8th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan and Kaufmann, 315–322.Google Scholar
  25. Travè-Massuyès, L., and Piera, N. (1989). The orders of magnitude models as qualitative algebras. InProceedings of 11th Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-89), Detroit, Michigan, Aug. 20–25, 1261–1266.Google Scholar
  26. Van Benthem, J. (1986),Essays on Logical Semantic. Amsterdam: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  27. Wellman, M.P. (1988). Qualitative probabilistic networks for planning under uncertainty. In Lemmer, J.F., and Kanal, L.N. (Eds.),Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 197–208, 1988.Google Scholar
  28. Wellman, M.P. (1990). Fundamental concepts of qualitative probabilistic networks.Artificial Intelligence.44, 257–303.Google Scholar
  29. Westerstahl, D. (1989). Quantifiers in formal and natural languages. In Gabbay, D., and Guenthner, F. (Eds.),Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. IV. Amsterdam: D. Reidel 1–131.Google Scholar
  30. Xiang, X., Beddoes, M.P., and Poole, D. (1990). Can uncertainty management be realized in a finite totally ordered probability algebra. In Henrion, M., Shachter, R.D., Kanal, L.N., and Lemmer, J.F. (Eds.),Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 5. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 41–57.Google Scholar
  31. Zadeh, L.A. (1985). Syllogistic reasoning in fuzzy logic and its application to usuality and reasoning with dispositions.IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 15–6 754–763.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Didier Dubois
    • 1
  • Lluis Godo
    • 2
  • Ramon López De Màntaras
    • 2
  • Henri Prade
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse CNRSUniversité Paul SabatierToulouse CedexFrance
  2. 2.Institut d'Investigacio en Intelligencia ArtificialCEAB-CSICBlanesSpain

Personalised recommendations