Belief function independence. II: The conditional case. (English) Zbl 1052.68126
Summary: In Part I [ibid. 29, 47–70 (2002; Zbl 1015.68207)], we have emphasized the distinction between non-interactivity and doxastic independence in the context of the transferable belief model. The first corresponds to decomposition of the belief function, whereas the second is defined as irrelevance preserved under Dempster’s rule of combination. We had shown that the two concepts are equivalent in the marginal case. We proceed here with the conditional case. We show how the definitions generalize themselves, and that we still have the equivalence between conditional non-interactivity and conditional doxastic independence.
MSC:
| 68T37 | Reasoning under uncertainty in the context of artificial intelligence |
Keywords:
Belief functions; transferable belief model; conditional non-interactivity; conditional irrelevance; conditional doxastic independenceCitations:
Zbl 1015.68207Software:
SeparoidsReferences:
| [1] | Almond, R. G., Graphical Belief Modeling (1995), Chapman & Hall: Chapman & Hall London |
| [2] | Ben Yaghlane, B.; Smets, P.; Mellouli, K., On conditional belief function independence, (Scozzafava, R.; Vantaggi, B., Independence, Conditioning, Inference (2000), Workshop on Partial Knowledge and Uncertainty: Workshop on Partial Knowledge and Uncertainty Rome, Italy) · Zbl 1005.68553 |
| [3] | Ben Yaghlane, B.; Smets, P.; Mellouli, K., Independence concepts for belief functions, (Bouchon-Meunier, B.; Gutiérrez, J.; Magdalena, L.; Yager, R., Technologies for Constructing Intelligent Systems: Vol. II Tools. Technologies for Constructing Intelligent Systems: Vol. II Tools, In the Series Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing (2001), Physica-Verlag: Physica-Verlag Wurzburg), 45-58, A short version has been appeared in IPMU’2000, Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-based Systems, Madrid, Vol. I, pp. 357-364, 2000 · Zbl 1015.68190 |
| [4] | Ben Yaghlane, B.; Smets, P.; Mellouli, K., Belief function independence: I. The marginal case, Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 29/1, 1, 47-70 (2002) · Zbl 1015.68207 |
| [5] | Cozman, F. G., Irrelevance and independence axioms in quasi-Bayesian theory, (Hunter, T.; Parsons, S., Proceedings of European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty ECSQARU’99. Proceedings of European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty ECSQARU’99, Lecture Notes in AI 1638 (1999), Springer-Verlag: Springer-Verlag Berlin), 128-136 · Zbl 0946.62004 |
| [6] | Dawid, A. P., Conditional independence in statistical theory, J. Roy. Statist. Soc., Ser. B, 41, 1-31 (1979) · Zbl 0408.62004 |
| [7] | Dawid, A. P., Conditional independence, Encycl. Statist. Sci., 2, 146-155 (1998) |
| [8] | Dawid, A. P., Separoids: A mathematical framework for conditional independence and irrelevance, Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 32, 335-372 (2001) · Zbl 1314.68308 |
| [9] | Dawid, A. P.; Studeny, M., Conditional products: An alternative approach to conditional independence, (Heckerman, D.; Whittaker, J., Artificial Intelligence and Statistics 99 (1999), Morgan Kaufmann: Morgan Kaufmann Los Altos, CA), 32-40 |
| [10] | de Campos, L. M.; Huete, J. F.; Moral, S., Possibilistic independence, (Proceedings of Third European Congress on Intelligent Techniques and Soft Computing EUFIT’95, vol. 1, Germany (1995)), 69-73 |
| [11] | Dempster, A. P., Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multiple valued mapping, Ann. Math. Statist., 38, 325-339 (1967) · Zbl 0168.17501 |
| [12] | Fagin, R., Multivalued dependencies and a new form for relational databases, ACM Trans. Database Syst., 2, 3, 262-278 (1977) |
| [13] | Fonck, P., Conditional independence in possibility theory, (Heckerman, D.; Poole, D.; Lopez De Mantaras, R., Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 94 (1994), Morgan Kaufmann: Morgan Kaufmann San Mateo, CA), 221-226 |
| [14] | Hunter, D., Graphoids and natural conditional functions, Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 5, 489-504 (1991) · Zbl 0741.68088 |
| [15] | Jaffray, J. Y., Linear utility theory for belief functions, Oper. Res. Lett., 8, 107-112 (1989) · Zbl 0673.90010 |
| [16] | Kohlas, J.; Monney, P. A., A Mathematical Theory of Hints: An Approach to Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence, (Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 425 (1995), Springer-Verlag: Springer-Verlag Berlin) · Zbl 0833.62005 |
| [17] | C.T.A. Kong, A belief function generalization of gibbs ensemble. Technical report, S-122 Harvard University and N239, 1988, University of Chicago, Department of Statistics; C.T.A. Kong, A belief function generalization of gibbs ensemble. Technical report, S-122 Harvard University and N239, 1988, University of Chicago, Department of Statistics |
| [18] | Pearl, J., Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference (1988), Morgan Kaufmann: Morgan Kaufmann San Mateo, CA, USA |
| [19] | Pearl, J.; Paz, A., Graphoids: A graph based logic for reasoning about relevance relations, (Boulay, B. D.; etal., Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 2 (1987), North-Holland: North-Holland Amsterdam), 357-363 |
| [20] | Shafer, G., A Mathematical Theory of Evidence (1976), Princeton University Press: Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ · Zbl 0359.62002 |
| [21] | Shafer, G.; Shenoy, P. P.; Mellouli, K., Propagating belief functions in qualitative markov trees, Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 1, 349-400 (1987) · Zbl 0641.68158 |
| [22] | Shenoy, P. P., Conditional independence in valuation-based systems, Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 10, 203-234 (1994) · Zbl 0821.68114 |
| [23] | Smets, P., Belief functions: the disjunctive rule of combination and the generalized Bayesian theorem, Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 9, 1-35 (1993) · Zbl 0796.68177 |
| [24] | Smets, P., Probability, possibility, belief: which for what?, (De Cooman, G.; Da, R.; Kerre, E. E., Foundation and Applications of Possibility Theory (1995), World Scientific: World Scientific Singapore), 20-40 |
| [25] | Smets, P., The transferable belief model for quantified belief representation, (Gabbay, D. M.; Smets, P., Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, vol. 1 (1998), Kluwer Academic Publishers: Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht, The Netherlands), 267-301 · Zbl 0939.68112 |
| [26] | Smets, P.; Kennes, R., The transferable belief model, Artificial Intelligence, 66, 191-234 (1994) · Zbl 0807.68087 |
| [27] | Spohn, W., Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of episemic states, (Harper, W.; Skyrms, B., Causation in Decision, Belief Changes and Statistics (1988)), 105-134 |
| [28] | Studeny, M., Formal properties of conditional independence in different calculi of artificial intelligence, (Clarke, K.; Kruse, R.; Moral, S., Proceedings of European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty ECSQARU’93 (1993), Springer: Springer Berlin), 341-348 |
| [29] | Vejnarova, J., Conditional independence relations in possibility theory, (Proceedings of 1st International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications ISIPTA’99 (1999), Ghent), 343-351 |
| [30] | Walley, P., Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities (1991), Chapman & Hall: Chapman & Hall London · Zbl 0732.62004 |
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.
