Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uncertain inference network in evidential reasoning

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
Evolutionary Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a dominant method in evidential reasoning, Bayesian network has been proved powerful in discrete fields. Although Bayesian network performs reliable in continuous variables and interval estimations, it relies on discretizing continuous variables or building an approximate model to conduct, which causes information loss and accuracy reduction. In order to bridge this gap, this paper introduces two inference rules combined with four inference rules proposed by other scholars. Then we propose a concept of uncertain inference network that consists of six basic structures matching inference rules to represent relationships and logic connection among the evidence. Evidence is represented by uncertain sets that can apply to continuous variables using membership functions to represent vague concepts. Furthermore, a numeric experiment for a forensic investigation of fire incidents is given to compare the results of uncertain inference network and Bayesian network. We found three merits in the case study. First, an uncertain inference network has simpler data access for each node because Bayesian network depends on conditional probability tables while uncertain inference network only relies on membership function. Second, an uncertain inference network has a more wide application because it can perform continuous variables with certain mathematical formulas without discretizing or approximating. Third, an uncertain inference network has a more accurate result because Bayesian network gives a point estimation with a 0–1 value while uncertain inference network conducts an interval estimation with a range value.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cantor NF (1997) Imagining the law: Common Law and the foundations of the American Legal System. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brewer S (1998) Precedents, statutes, and analysis of legal concepts. Garland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bouvier J (1856) A law dictionary, adapted to the constitution and laws of the United States. N Am Rev 93(192):71–82

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ruspini EH, Lowrance J, Strat T (1992) Understanding evidential reasoning. Int J Approx Reason 6(3):401–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gerla G (1994) Inferences in probability logic. Artif Intell 70(1–2):33–52

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Yang JB, Singh MG (1994) An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24(1):1–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 50–59

  8. Bench-Capon T (1997) Argument in artificial intelligence and law. Artif Intell Law 5(4):249–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lehmann J (2003) Causation in artificial intelligence and law: a modeling approach. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  10. Reed C, Walton D, Macagno F (2007) Argument diagramming in logic, artificial intelligence, and law. Soc Sci Electron Publish 22(1):87–109

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schuller A (2017) At the crossroads of control: the intersection of artificial intelligence in autonomous weapon systems with international humanitarian law. Harvard Natl Secur J 8:39–54

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Krausovái A (2017) Intersections between law and artificial intelligence. Int J Comput 27(1):55–68

    Google Scholar 

  13. Condliffe P, Abrahams B, Zeleznikow J (2010) An OWL ontology and Bayesian network to support legal reasoning in the owners corporation domain. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on online dispute resolution, pp 51–62

  14. Pearl J (1987) Evidential reasoning using stochastic simulation of causal models. Artif Intell 32:245–257

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Cooper GF (1990) The computational complexity of probabilistic inference using Bayesian belief networks. Artif Intell 42(2–3):393–405

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Chavez RM, Cooper GF (1990) A randomized approximation algorithm for probabilistic inference on Bayesian belief networks. Networks 20(5):661–685

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Dagum P, Luby M (1993) Approximating probabilistic inference in Bayesian belief networks is NP-hard. Artif Intell 60(1):141–153

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Keppens J, Shen Q, Price C (2011) Compositional Bayesian modeling for computation of evidence collection strategies. Appl Intell 35:134–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheng J, Druzdzel MJ (2000) AIS-BN: an adaptive importance sampling algorithm for evidential reasoning in large Bayesian networks. J Artif Intell Res 13:155–188

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang JB, Xu DL (2002) On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 32(3):289–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Friedman N, Goldszmidt M (1996) Discretizing continuous attributes while learning Bayesian networks. In: International conference on machine learning

  22. Friedman N, Goldszmidt M, Lee TJ (1998) Bayesian network classification with continuous attributes: getting the best of both discretization and parametric fitting. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth international conference on machine learning

  23. Davies S, Moore A (2000) Mix-nets: factored mixtures of Gaussians in Bayesian networks with mixed continuous and discrete variables. In: Uncertainty in artificial intelligence proceedings, pp 168–175

  24. Xiang J, Kim S (2013) A* lasso for learning a sparse Bayesian network structure for continuous variables. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on neural information processing systems, vol 2, pp 2418–2426

  25. Sun W, Chang KC (2007) Unscented message passing for arbitrary continuous variables in Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on artificial intelligence, vol 2, pp 1902–1903

  26. Biedermann A, Taroni F, Delemont O, Semadeni C, Davison AC (2005) The evaluation of evidence in the forensic investigation of fire incidents ( part i ): an approach using Bayesian networks. Forensic Sci Int 147:49–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Biedermann A, Taroni F, Delemont O, Semadeni C, Davison AC (2005) The evaluation of evidence in the forensic investigation of fire incidents ( part ii ): practical examples of the use of Bayesian networks. Forensic Sci Int 147:59–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bex F, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argument schemes and generalizations. Artif Intell Law 11:125–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Prakken H (2004) Analyzing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation. Law Probab Risk 3:33–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Governatori G, Maher MJ, Antoniou G, Billington D (2004) Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. J Logic Comput 14(5):675–702

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Green N (2011) Causal argumentation schemes to support sense-making in clinical genetics and law. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 56–60

  33. Schum DA (1994) The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. Northwestern University Press, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  34. Keppens J (2012) Argument diagram extraction from evidential Bayesian networks. Artif Intell Law 20(2):109–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Keppens J (2011) On extracting arguments from Bayesian network representations of evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp. 41–150

  36. Liu B (2015) Uncertainty Theory. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu B (2012) Membership functions and operational law of uncertain sets. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 11(4):387–410

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Liu B (2013) A new definition of independence of uncertain sets. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 12(4):451–461

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Liu B (2010) Uncertain set theory and uncertain inference rule with application to uncertain control. J Uncertain Syst 4(2):83–98

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Gao X, Gao Y, Ralescu DA (2010) On Liu's inference rule for uncertain systems. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 8(1):1–11

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert J, McCrossan S (2000) The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Sci Justice 40(4):233–239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mathematics, Remin University of China, Beijing, 100872, China

    Lijie Hu

  2. School of Economics, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 266100, China

    Jinwu Gao

  3. Department of Business Sciences Management and Innovation Systems, University of Salerno, 84084, Fisciano, SA, Italy

    Giuseppe Fenza

  4. College of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, 410073, China

    Yanghe Feng

  5. Department of Information Engineering and Electrical and Applied Mathematics, University of Salerno, 84084, Fisciano, SA, Italy

    Carmen De Maio

Authors
  1. Lijie Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jinwu Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giuseppe Fenza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yanghe Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carmen De Maio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanghe Feng.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, L., Gao, J., Fenza, G. et al. Uncertain inference network in evidential reasoning. Evol. Intel. 17, 91–106 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-020-00485-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-020-00485-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation