Dempsterian-Shaferian Belief Network From Data
Shenoy and Shafer {Shenoy:90} demonstrated that both for Dempster-Shafer Theory and probability theory there exists a possibility to calculate efficiently marginals of joint belief distributions (by so-called local computations) provided that the joint distribution can be decomposed (factorized) into a belief network. A number of algorithms exists for decomposition of probabilistic joint belief distribution into a bayesian (belief) network from data. For example Spirtes, Glymour and Schein{Spirtes:90b} formulated a Conjecture that a direct dependence test and a head-to-head meeting test would suffice to construe bayesian network from data in such a way that Pearl's concept of d-separation {Geiger:90} applies. This paper is intended to transfer Spirtes, Glymour and Scheines {Spirtes:90b} approach onto the ground of the Dempster-Shafer Theory (DST). For this purpose, a frequentionistic interpretation of the DST developed in {Klopotek:93b} is exploited. A special notion of conditionality for DST is introduced and demonstrated to behave with respect to Pearl's d-separation {Geiger:90} much the same way as conditional probability (though some differences like non-uniqueness are evident). Based on this, an algorithm analogous to that from {Spirtes:90b} is developed. The notion of a partially oriented graph (pog) is introduced and within this graph the notion of p-d-separation is defined. If direct dependence test and head-to-head meeting test are used to orient the pog then its p-d-separation is shown to be equivalent to the Pearl's d-separation for any compatible dag.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Methods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Mathematical Theory of Evidence Versus Evidence
This paper is concerned with the apparent greatest weakness of the Mathematical Theory of Evidence (MTE) of Shafer \cite{Shafer:76}, which has been strongly criticized by Wasserman \cite{Wasserman:92ijar}. Weaknesses o…
Do Language Models Have Beliefs? Methods for Detecting, Updating, and Visualizing Model Beliefs
Do language models have beliefs about the world? Dennett (1995) famously argues that even thermostats have beliefs, on the view that a belief is simply an informational state decoupled from any motivational state. In thi…
A semantic embedding space based on large language models for modelling human beliefs
Beliefs form the foundation of human cognition and decision-making, guiding our actions and social connections. A model encapsulating beliefs and their interrelationships is crucial for understanding their influence on o…
Decision MakingLanguage ModelingLanguage ModellingLarge Language ModelBisimulation and expressivity for conditional belief, degrees of belief, and safe belief
Plausibility models are Kripke models that agents use to reason about knowledge and belief, both of themselves and of each other. Such models are used to interpret the notions of conditional belief, degrees of belief, an…
AGM-Style Revision of Beliefs and Intentions from a Database Perspective (Preliminary Version)
We introduce a logic for temporal beliefs and intentions based on Shoham's database perspective. We separate strong beliefs from weak beliefs. Strong beliefs are independent from intentions, while weak beliefs are obtain…