CS 63

Knowledge
Representation and
Reasoning
Chapter 10.1-10.2, 10.6
Adapted from slides by
Tim Finin and
Marie desJardins.

Some material adopted from notes

by Andreas Geyer-Schulz,

and Chuck Dyer.

Abduction
Abduction is a reasoning process that tries to form plausible
explanations for abnormal observations
Abduction is distinctly different from deduction and induction
Abduction is inherently uncertain

Uncertainty is an important issue in abductive reasoning

Some major formalisms for representing and reasoning about
uncertainty

Mycins certainty factors (an early representative)

Probability theory (esp. Bayesian belief networks)
Dempster-Shafer theory
Fuzzy logic
Truth maintenance systems
Nonmonotonic reasoning

Abduction
Definition (Encyclopedia Britannica): reasoning that derives
an explanatory hypothesis from a given set of facts
The inference result is a hypothesis that, if true, could
explain the occurrence of the given facts
Examples
Dendral, an expert system to construct 3D structure of
chemical compounds
Fact: mass spectrometer data of the compound and its
chemical formula
KB: chemistry, esp. strength of different types of bounds
Reasoning: form a hypothetical 3D structure that satisfies the
chemical formula, and that would most likely produce the
given mass spectrum

Abduction examples (cont.)

Medical diagnosis
Facts: symptoms, lab test results, and other observed findings
(called manifestations)
KB: causal associations between diseases and manifestations
Reasoning: one or more diseases whose presence would
causally explain the occurrence of the given manifestations

Many other reasoning processes (e.g., word sense

disambiguation in natural language process, image
understanding, criminal investigation) can also been seen
as abductive reasoning

Comparing abduction, deduction,

and induction
A => B
A
--------B

Deduction: major premise:

minor premise:
conclusion:

All balls in the box are black

These balls are from the box
These balls are black

Abduction: rule:
observation:
explanation:

All balls in the box are black A => B

B
These balls are black
------------These balls are from the box Possibly A

Induction: case:
These balls are from the box
observation:
These balls are black
hypothesized rule: All ball in the box are black
Deduction reasons from causes to effects
Abduction reasons from effects to causes
Induction reasons from specific cases to general rules

Whenever
A then B
------------Possibly
A => B

Characteristics of abductive
reasoning

Conclusions are hypotheses, not theorems (may be

false even if rules and facts are true)
E.g., misdiagnosis in medicine

There may be multiple plausible hypotheses

Given rules A => B and C => B, and fact B, both A and C
are plausible hypotheses
Abduction is inherently uncertain
Hypotheses can be ranked by their plausibility (if it can be
determined)

Characteristics of abductive
reasoning (cont.)

Reasoning is often a hypothesize-and-test cycle

Hypothesize: Postulate possible hypotheses, any of which would

explain the given facts (or at least most of the important facts)
Test: Test the plausibility of all or some of these hypotheses
One way to test a hypothesis H is to ask whether something that is
currently unknownbut can be predicted from His actually true
If we also know A => D and C => E, then ask if D and E are
true
If D is true and E is false, then hypothesis A becomes more
plausible (support for A is increased; support for C is
decreased)

Characteristics of abductive
reasoning (cont.)

Reasoning is non-monotonic
That is, the plausibility of hypotheses can
increase/decrease as new facts are collected
In contrast, deductive inference is monotonic: it never
change a sentences truth value, once known
In abductive (and inductive) reasoning, some
hypotheses may be discarded, and new ones formed,
when new observations are made

Sources of uncertainty
Uncertain inputs
Missing data
Noisy data

Uncertain knowledge

Multiple causes lead to multiple effects

Incomplete enumeration of conditions or effects
Incomplete knowledge of causality in the domain
Probabilistic/stochastic effects

Uncertain outputs

Abduction and induction are inherently uncertain

Default reasoning, even in deductive fashion, is uncertain
Incomplete deductive inference may be uncertain

Probabilistic reasoning only gives probabilistic results

(summarizes uncertainty from various sources)

Decision making with uncertainty

Rational behavior:
For each possible action, identify the possible outcomes
Compute the probability of each outcome
Compute the utility of each outcome
Compute the probability-weighted (expected) utility
over possible outcomes for each action
Select the action with the highest expected utility
(principle of Maximum Expected Utility)

Bayesian reasoning
Probability theory
Bayesian inference
Use probability theory and information about independence
Reason diagnostically (from evidence (effects) to conclusions
(causes)) or causally (from causes to effects)

Bayesian networks
Compact representation of probability distribution over a set of
propositional random variables
Take advantage of independence relationships

Other uncertainty representations

Default reasoning
Nonmonotonic logic: Allow the retraction of default beliefs if they
prove to be false

Rule-based methods
Certainty factors (Mycin): propagate simple models of belief
through causal or diagnostic rules

Evidential reasoning
Dempster-Shafer theory: Bel(P) is a measure of the evidence for P;
Bel(P) is a measure of the evidence against P; together they define
a belief interval (lower and upper bounds on confidence)

Fuzzy reasoning
Fuzzy sets: How well does an object satisfy a vague property?
Fuzzy logic: How true is a logical statement?

Uncertainty tradeoffs
Bayesian networks: Nice theoretical properties combined
with efficient reasoning make BNs very popular; limited
expressiveness, knowledge engineering challenges may
limit uses
Nonmonotonic logic: Represent commonsense reasoning,
but can be computationally very expensive
Certainty factors: Not semantically well founded
Dempster-Shafer theory: Has nice formal properties, but
can be computationally expensive, and intervals tend to
grow towards [0,1] (not a very useful conclusion)
Fuzzy reasoning: Semantics are unclear (fuzzy!), but has
proved very useful for commercial applications

CS 63

Bayesian Reasoning
Chapter 13
Adapted from slides by
Tim Finin and
Marie desJardins.

Outline
Probability theory
Bayesian inference
From the joint distribution
Using independence/factoring
From sources of evidence

Sources of uncertainty
Uncertain inputs
Missing data
Noisy data

Uncertain knowledge

Multiple causes lead to multiple effects

Incomplete enumeration of conditions or effects
Incomplete knowledge of causality in the domain
Probabilistic/stochastic effects

Uncertain outputs

Abduction and induction are inherently uncertain

Default reasoning, even in deductive fashion, is uncertain
Incomplete deductive inference may be uncertain

Probabilistic reasoning only gives probabilistic results

(summarizes uncertainty from various sources)

Decision making with uncertainty

Rational behavior:
For each possible action, identify the possible outcomes
Compute the probability of each outcome
Compute the utility of each outcome
Compute the probability-weighted (expected) utility
over possible outcomes for each action
Select the action with the highest expected utility
(principle of Maximum Expected Utility)

Why probabilities anyway?

Kolmogorov showed that three simple axioms lead to the

rules of probability theory

De Finetti, Cox, and Carnap have also provided compelling

arguments for these axioms

1. All probabilities are between 0 and 1:

0 P(a) 1

2. Valid propositions (tautologies) have probability 1, and

unsatisfiable propositions have probability 0:

P(true) = 1 ; P(false) = 0

3. The probability of a disjunction is given by:

P(a b) = P(a) + P(b) P(a b)

ab

Probability theory
Random variables
Domain

Alarm, Burglary, Earthquake

Boolean (like these), discrete,
continuous

Atomic event: complete

specification of state

(Alarm=True Burglary=True
Earthquake=False) or equivalently
(alarm burglary earthquake)

Prior probability: degree

of belief without any other
evidence
Joint probability: matrix
of combined probabilities
of a set of variables

P(Burglary) = 0.1
P(Alarm, Burglary) =
alarm

alarm

burglary

0.09

0.01

burglary

0.1

0.8

Probability theory (cont.)

Conditional probability:
probability of effect given causes
Computing conditional probs:
P(a | b) = P(a b) / P(b)
P(b): normalizing constant

Product rule:
P(a b) = P(a | b) P(b)

Marginalizing:
P(B) = aP(B, a)
P(B) = aP(B | a) P(a)
(conditioning)

P(burglary | alarm) = 0.47

P(alarm | burglary) = 0.9
P(burglary | alarm) =
P(burglary alarm) / P(alarm)
= 0.09 / 0.19 = 0.47
P(burglary alarm) =
P(burglary | alarm) P(alarm) =
0.47 * 0.19 = 0.09
P(alarm) =
P(alarm burglary) +
P(alarm burglary) =
0.09 + 0.1 = 0.19

Example: Inference from the joint

alarm

alarm

earthquake

earthquake

earthquake

earthquake

burglary

0.01

0.08

0.001

0.009

burglary

0.01

0.09

0.01

0.79

P(Burglary | alarm) = P(Burglary, alarm)

= [P(Burglary, alarm, earthquake) + P(Burglary, alarm, earthquake)
= [ (0.01, 0.01) + (0.08, 0.09) ]
= [ (0.09, 0.1) ]
Since P(burglary | alarm) + P(burglary | alarm) = 1, = 1/(0.09+0.1) = 5.26
(i.e., P(alarm) = 1/ = 0.109
Quizlet: how can you verify this?)
P(burglary | alarm) = 0.09 * 5.26 = 0.474
P(burglary | alarm) = 0.1 * 5.26 = 0.526

Exercise: Inference from the joint

smart

smart

p(smart
study prep) study study

study

study

prepared

0.432

0.16

0.084

0.008

prepared

0.048

0.16

0.036

0.072

Queries:
What is the prior probability of smart?
What is the prior probability of study?
What is the conditional probability of prepared, given
study and smart?

Save these answers for next time!

Independence
When two sets of propositions do not affect each others
probabilities, we call them independent, and can easily
compute their joint and conditional probability:
Independent (A, B) P(A B) = P(A) P(B), P(A | B) = P(A)

For example, {moon-phase, light-level} might be

independent of {burglary, alarm, earthquake}
Then again, it might not: Burglars might be more likely to
burglarize houses when theres a new moon (and hence little light)
But if we know the light level, the moon phase doesnt affect
whether we are burglarized
Once were burglarized, light level doesnt affect whether the alarm
goes off

We need a more complex notion of independence, and

methods for reasoning about these kinds of relationships

Exercise: Independence
smart

smart

p(smart
study prep) study study

study

study

prepared

0.432

0.16

0.084

0.008

prepared

0.048

0.16

0.036

0.072

Queries:
Is smart independent of study?
Is prepared independent of study?

Conditional independence
Absolute independence:
A and B are independent if and only if P(A B) = P(A) P(B);
equivalently, P(A) = P(A | B) and P(B) = P(B | A)

A and B are conditionally independent given C if and only if

P(A B | C) = P(A | C) P(B | C)

This lets us decompose the joint distribution:

P(A B C) = P(A | C) P(B | C) P(C)

Moon-Phase and Burglary are conditionally independent

given Light-Level
Conditional independence is weaker than absolute
independence, but still useful in decomposing the full joint
probability distribution

Exercise: Conditional independence

smart

smart

p(smart
study prep) study study

study

study

prepared

0.432

0.16

0.084

0.008

prepared

0.048

0.16

0.036

0.072

Queries:
Is smart conditionally independent of prepared, given
study?
Is study conditionally independent of prepared, given
smart?

Bayess rule
Bayess rule is derived from the product rule:
P(Y | X) = P(X | Y) P(Y) / P(X)

Often useful for diagnosis:

If X are (observed) effects and Y are (hidden) causes,
We may have a model for how causes lead to effects (P(X | Y))
We may also have prior beliefs (based on experience) about the
frequency of occurrence of effects (P(Y))
Which allows us to reason abductively from effects to causes (P(Y |
X)).

Bayesian inference
In the setting of diagnostic/evidential reasoning
P(E j | H i )

E1

H i P(Hi )
Ej

hypotheses
Em

evidence/manifestations

Know prior probability of hypothesis

conditional probability
Want to compute the posterior probability

Bayes theorem (formula 1):

P(Hi | E j ) P(Hi )P(E j | H i ) / P(E j )

P(Hi )
P(E j | Hi )
P(Hi | E j )

Simple Bayesian diagnostic reasoning

Knowledge base:
Evidence / manifestations:
Hypotheses / disorders:

E1, , Em
H1, , Hn

Ej and Hi are binary; hypotheses are mutually exclusive (nonoverlapping) and exhaustive (cover all possible cases)

Conditional probabilities:

P(Ej | Hi), i = 1, , n; j = 1, , m

Cases (evidence for a particular instance): E1, , Em

Goal: Find the hypothesis Hi with the highest posterior
Maxi P(Hi | E1, , Em)

Bayesian diagnostic reasoning II

Bayes rule says that
P(Hi | E1, , Em) = P(E1, , Em | Hi) P(Hi) / P(E1, , Em)

Assume each piece of evidence Ei is conditionally

independent of the others, given a hypothesis Hi, then:
P(E1, , Em | Hi) = mj=1 P(Ej | Hi)

If we only care about relative probabilities for the Hi, then

we have:
P(Hi | E1, , Em) = P(Hi) mj=1 P(Ej | Hi)

Limitations of simple
Bayesian inference
Cannot easily handle multi-fault situation, nor cases where
intermediate (hidden) causes exist:
Disease D causes syndrome S, which causes correlated
manifestations M1 and M2

Consider a composite hypothesis H1 H2, where H1 and H2

are independent. What is the relative posterior?
P(H1 H2 | E1, , Em) = P(E1, , Em | H1 H2) P(H1 H2)
= P(E1, , Em | H1 H2) P(H1) P(H2)
= mj=1 P(Ej | H1 H2) P(H1) P(H2)

How do we compute P(Ej | H1 H2) ??

Limitations of simple Bayesian

inference II
Assume H1 and H2 are independent, given E1, , Em?
P(H1 H2 | E1, , Em) = P(H1 | E1, , Em) P(H2 | E1, , Em)

This is a very unreasonable assumption

Earthquake and Burglar are independent, but not given Alarm:
P(burglar | alarm, earthquake) << P(burglar | alarm)

Another limitation is that simple application of Bayess rule doesnt

allow us to handle causal chaining:
A: this years weather; B: cotton production; C: next years cotton price
A influences C indirectly: A B C
P(C | B, A) = P(C | B)

Need a richer representation to model interacting hypotheses,

conditional independence, and causal chaining
Next time: conditional independence and Bayesian networks!