Showing 1–17 of 17 results for author: Smets, P

Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (1991)

Authors: Piero Bonissone, Bruce D'Ambrosio, Philippe Smets

Abstract: This is the Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, which was held in Los Angeles, CA, July 13-15, 1991 This is the Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, which was held in Los Angeles, CA, July 13-15, 1991 △ Less

Submitted 13 April, 2013; originally announced April 2013.

Report number: UAI1991

Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (1992)

Authors: Bruce D'Ambrosio, Didier Dubois, Philippe Smets, Michael Wellman

Abstract: This is the Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, which was held in Stanford, CA, July 17-19, 1992 This is the Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, which was held in Stanford, CA, July 17-19, 1992 △ Less

Submitted 13 April, 2013; originally announced April 2013.

Report number: UAI1992

Decision under Uncertainty

Authors: Philippe Smets

Abstract: We derive axiomatically the probability function that should be used to make decisions given any form of underlying uncertainty. We derive axiomatically the probability function that should be used to make decisions given any form of underlying uncertainty. △ Less

Submitted 27 March, 2013; originally announced April 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1989)

Report number: UAI-P-1989-PG-319-326

Default Reasoning and the Transferable Belief Model

Authors: Philippe Smets, Yen-Teh Hsia

Abstract: Inappropriate use of Dempster's rule of combination has led some authors to reject the Dempster-Shafer model, arguing that it leads to supposedly unacceptable conclusions when defaults are involved. A most classic example is about the penguin Tweety. This paper will successively present: the origin of the miss-management of the Tweety example; two types of default; the correct solution for both… ▽ More Inappropriate use of Dempster's rule of combination has led some authors to reject the Dempster-Shafer model, arguing that it leads to supposedly unacceptable conclusions when defaults are involved. A most classic example is about the penguin Tweety. This paper will successively present: the origin of the miss-management of the Tweety example; two types of default; the correct solution for both types based on the transferable belief model (our interpretation of the Dempster-Shafer model (Shafer 1976, Smets 1988)); Except when explicitly stated, all belief functions used in this paper are simple support functions, i.e. belief functions for which only one proposition (the focus) of the frame of discernment receives a positive basic belief mass with the remaining mass being given to the tautology. Each belief function will be described by its focus and the weight of the focus (e.g. m(A)=.9). Computation of the basic belief masses are always performed by vacuously extending each belief function to the product space built from all variables involved, combining them on that space by Dempster's rule of combination, and projecting the result to the space corresponding to each individual variable. △ Less

Submitted 27 March, 2013; originally announced April 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1990)

Report number: UAI-P-1990-PG-529-537

Computational Aspects of the Mobius Transform

Authors: Robert Kennes, Philippe Smets

Abstract: In this paper we associate with every (directed) graph G a transformation called the Mobius transformation of the graph G. The Mobius transformation of the graph (O) is of major significance for Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. However, because it is computationally very heavy, the Mobius transformation together with Dempster's rule of combination is a major obstacle to the use of Dempster-Sh… ▽ More In this paper we associate with every (directed) graph G a transformation called the Mobius transformation of the graph G. The Mobius transformation of the graph (O) is of major significance for Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. However, because it is computationally very heavy, the Mobius transformation together with Dempster's rule of combination is a major obstacle to the use of Dempster-Shafer theory for handling uncertainty in expert systems. The major contribution of this paper is the discovery of the 'fast Mobius transformations' of (O). These 'fast Mobius transformations' are the fastest algorithms for computing the Mobius transformation of (O). As an easy but useful application, we provide, via the commonality function, an algorithm for computing Dempster's rule of combination which is much faster than the usual one. △ Less

Submitted 27 March, 2013; originally announced April 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1990)

Report number: UAI-P-1990-PG-344-351

The Transferable Belief Model and Other Interpretations of Dempster-Shafer's Model

Authors: Philippe Smets

Abstract: Dempster-Shafer's model aims at quantifying degrees of belief But there are so many interpretations of Dempster-Shafer's theory in the literature that it seems useful to present the various contenders in order to clarify their respective positions. We shall successively consider the classical probability model, the upper and lower probabilities model, Dempster's model, the transferable belief mod… ▽ More Dempster-Shafer's model aims at quantifying degrees of belief But there are so many interpretations of Dempster-Shafer's theory in the literature that it seems useful to present the various contenders in order to clarify their respective positions. We shall successively consider the classical probability model, the upper and lower probabilities model, Dempster's model, the transferable belief model, the evidentiary value model, the provability or necessity model. None of these models has received the qualification of Dempster-Shafer. In fact the transferable belief model is our interpretation not of Dempster's work but of Shafer's work as presented in his book (Shafer 1976, Smets 1988). It is a ?purified' form of Dempster-Shafer's model in which any connection with probability concept has been deleted. Any model for belief has at least two components: one static that describes our state of belief, the other dynamic that explains how to update our belief given new pieces of information. We insist on the fact that both components must be considered in order to study these models. Too many authors restrict themselves to the static component and conclude that Dempster-Shafer theory is the same as some other theory. But once the dynamic component is considered, these conclusions break down. Any comparison based only on the static component is too restricted. The dynamic component must also be considered as the originality of the models based on belief functions lies in its dynamic component. △ Less

Submitted 27 March, 2013; originally announced April 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1990)

Report number: UAI-P-1990-PG-326-333

About Updating

Authors: Philippe Smets

Abstract: Survey of several forms of updating, with a practical illustrative example. We study several updating (conditioning) schemes that emerge naturally from a common scenarion to provide some insights into their meaning. Updating is a subtle operation and there is no single method, no single 'good' rule. The choice of the appropriate rule must always be given due consideration. Planchet (1989) pres… ▽ More Survey of several forms of updating, with a practical illustrative example. We study several updating (conditioning) schemes that emerge naturally from a common scenarion to provide some insights into their meaning. Updating is a subtle operation and there is no single method, no single 'good' rule. The choice of the appropriate rule must always be given due consideration. Planchet (1989) presents a mathematical survey of many rules. We focus on the practical meaning of these rules. After summarizing the several rules for conditioning, we present an illustrative example in which the various forms of conditioning can be explained. △ Less

Submitted 20 March, 2013; originally announced March 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1991)

Report number: UAI-P-1991-PG-378-385

The Nature of the Unnormalized Beliefs Encountered in the Transferable Belief Model

Authors: Philippe Smets

Abstract: Within the transferable belief model, positive basic belief masses can be allocated to the empty set, leading to unnormalized belief functions. The nature of these unnormalized beliefs is analyzed. Within the transferable belief model, positive basic belief masses can be allocated to the empty set, leading to unnormalized belief functions. The nature of these unnormalized beliefs is analyzed. △ Less

Submitted 13 March, 2013; originally announced March 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1992)

Report number: UAI-P-1992-PG-292-297

The Dynamic of Belief in the Transferable Belief Model and Specialization-Generalization Matrices

Authors: Frank Klawonn, Philippe Smets

Abstract: The fundamental updating process in the transferable belief model is related to the concept of specialization and can be described by a specialization matrix. The degree of belief in the truth of a proposition is a degree of justified support. The Principle of Minimal Commitment implies that one should never give more support to the truth of a proposition than justified. We show that Dempster's… ▽ More The fundamental updating process in the transferable belief model is related to the concept of specialization and can be described by a specialization matrix. The degree of belief in the truth of a proposition is a degree of justified support. The Principle of Minimal Commitment implies that one should never give more support to the truth of a proposition than justified. We show that Dempster's rule of conditioning corresponds essentially to the least committed specialization, and that Dempster's rule of combination results essentially from commutativity requirements. The concept of generalization, dual to thc concept of specialization, is described. △ Less

Submitted 13 March, 2013; originally announced March 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1992)

Report number: UAI-P-1992-PG-130-137

A Belief-Function Based Decision Support System

Authors: Hong Xu, Yen-Teh Hsia, Philippe Smets

Abstract: In this paper, we present a decision support system based on belief functions and the pignistic transformation. The system is an integration of an evidential system for belief function propagation and a valuation-based system for Bayesian decision analysis. The two subsystems are connected through the pignistic transformation. The system takes as inputs the user's "gut feelings" about a situati… ▽ More In this paper, we present a decision support system based on belief functions and the pignistic transformation. The system is an integration of an evidential system for belief function propagation and a valuation-based system for Bayesian decision analysis. The two subsystems are connected through the pignistic transformation. The system takes as inputs the user's "gut feelings" about a situation and suggests what, if any, are to be tested and in what order, and it does so with a user friendly interface. △ Less

Submitted 6 March, 2013; originally announced March 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1993)

Report number: UAI-P-1993-PG-535-542

Jeffrey's rule of conditioning generalized to belief functions

Authors: Philippe Smets

Abstract: Jeffrey's rule of conditioning has been proposed in order to revise a probability measure by another probability function. We generalize it within the framework of the models based on belief functions. We show that several forms of Jeffrey's conditionings can be defined that correspond to the geometrical rule of conditioning and to Dempster's rule of conditioning, respectively. Jeffrey's rule of conditioning has been proposed in order to revise a probability measure by another probability function. We generalize it within the framework of the models based on belief functions. We show that several forms of Jeffrey's conditionings can be defined that correspond to the geometrical rule of conditioning and to Dempster's rule of conditioning, respectively. △ Less

Submitted 6 March, 2013; originally announced March 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1993)

Report number: UAI-P-1993-PG-500-505

Evidential Reasoning with Conditional Belief Functions

Authors: Hong Xu, Philippe Smets

Abstract: In the existing evidential networks with belief functions, the relations among the variables are always represented by joint belief functions on the product space of the involved variables. In this paper, we use conditional belief functions to represent such relations in the network and show some relations of these two kinds of representations. We also present a propagation algorithm for such net… ▽ More In the existing evidential networks with belief functions, the relations among the variables are always represented by joint belief functions on the product space of the involved variables. In this paper, we use conditional belief functions to represent such relations in the network and show some relations of these two kinds of representations. We also present a propagation algorithm for such networks. By analyzing the properties of some special evidential networks with conditional belief functions, we show that the reasoning process can be simplified in such kinds of networks. △ Less

Submitted 27 February, 2013; originally announced February 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1994)

Report number: UAI-P-1994-PG-598-605

Belief Induced by the Partial Knowledge of the Probabilities

Authors: Philippe Smets

Abstract: We construct the belief function that quantifies the agent, beliefs about which event of Q will occurred when he knows that the event is selected by a chance set-up and that the probability function associated to the chance set up is only partially known. We construct the belief function that quantifies the agent, beliefs about which event of Q will occurred when he knows that the event is selected by a chance set-up and that the probability function associated to the chance set up is only partially known. △ Less

Submitted 27 February, 2013; originally announced February 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1994)

Report number: UAI-P-1994-PG-523-532

Generating Explanations for Evidential Reasoning

Authors: Hong Xu, Philippe Smets

Abstract: In this paper, we present two methods to provide explanations for reasoning with belief functions in the valuation-based systems. One approach, inspired by Strat's method, is based on sensitivity analysis, but its computation is simpler thus easier to implement than Strat's. The other one is to examine the impact of evidence on the conclusion based on the measure of the information content in th… ▽ More In this paper, we present two methods to provide explanations for reasoning with belief functions in the valuation-based systems. One approach, inspired by Strat's method, is based on sensitivity analysis, but its computation is simpler thus easier to implement than Strat's. The other one is to examine the impact of evidence on the conclusion based on the measure of the information content in the evidence. We show the property of additivity for the pieces of evidence that are conditional independent within the context of the valuation-based systems. We will give an example to show how these approaches are applied in an evidential network. △ Less

Submitted 20 February, 2013; originally announced February 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1995)

Report number: UAI-P-1995-PG-574-581

Belief Functions and Default Reasoning

Authors: Salem Benferhat, Alessandro Saffiotti, Philippe Smets

Abstract: We present a new approach to dealing with default information based on the theory of belief functions. Our semantic structures, inspired by Adams' epsilon-semantics, are epsilon-belief assignments, where values committed to focal elements are either close to 0 or close to 1. We define two systems based on these structures, and relate them to other non-monotonic systems presented in the literatur… ▽ More We present a new approach to dealing with default information based on the theory of belief functions. Our semantic structures, inspired by Adams' epsilon-semantics, are epsilon-belief assignments, where values committed to focal elements are either close to 0 or close to 1. We define two systems based on these structures, and relate them to other non-monotonic systems presented in the literature. We show that our second system correctly addresses the well-known problems of specificity, irrelevance, blocking of inheritance, ambiguity, and redundancy. △ Less

Submitted 20 February, 2013; originally announced February 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1995)

Report number: UAI-P-1995-PG-19-26

Practical Uses of Belief Functions

Authors: Philippe Smets

Abstract: We present examples where the use of belief functions provided sound and elegant solutions to real life problems. These are essentially characterized by ?missing' information. The examples deal with 1) discriminant analysis using a learning set where classes are only partially known; 2) an information retrieval systems handling inter-documents relationships; 3) the combination of data from sensor… ▽ More We present examples where the use of belief functions provided sound and elegant solutions to real life problems. These are essentially characterized by ?missing' information. The examples deal with 1) discriminant analysis using a learning set where classes are only partially known; 2) an information retrieval systems handling inter-documents relationships; 3) the combination of data from sensors competent on partially overlapping frames; 4) the determination of the number of sources in a multi-sensor environment by studying the inter-sensors contradiction. The purpose of the paper is to report on such applications where the use of belief functions provides a convenient tool to handle ?messy' data problems. △ Less

Submitted 23 January, 2013; originally announced January 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1999)

Report number: UAI-P-1999-PG-612-621

Assessing the value of a candidate. Comparing belief function and possibility theories

Authors: Didier Dubois, Michel Grabisch, Henri Prade, Philippe Smets

Abstract: The problem of assessing the value of a candidate is viewed here as a multiple combination problem. On the one hand a candidate can be evaluated according to different criteria, and on the other hand several experts are supposed to assess the value of candidates according to each criterion. Criteria are not equally important, experts are not equally competent or reliable. Moreover levels of satisf… ▽ More The problem of assessing the value of a candidate is viewed here as a multiple combination problem. On the one hand a candidate can be evaluated according to different criteria, and on the other hand several experts are supposed to assess the value of candidates according to each criterion. Criteria are not equally important, experts are not equally competent or reliable. Moreover levels of satisfaction of criteria, or levels of confidence are only assumed to take their values in qualitative scales which are just linearly ordered. The problem is discussed within two frameworks, the transferable belief model and the qualitative possibility theory. They respectively offer a quantitative and a qualitative setting for handling the problem, providing thus a way to compare the nature of the underlying assumptions. △ Less

Submitted 23 January, 2013; originally announced January 2013.

Comments: Appears in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1999)

Report number: UAI-P-1999-PG-170-177