Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
M Broecheler, GI Simari, VS Subrahmanian (2009)
Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Logic Programming
N Fuhr (2000)
Probabilistic datalog: Implementing logical information retrieval for advanced applicationsJASIS, 51
S Kraus, DJ Lehmann, M Magidor (1990)
Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logicsArtif. Intell., 44
W Rödder, G Kern-Isberner (2003)
From information to probability: an axiomatic approach—inference isinformation processingInt. J. Intell. Syst., 18
G Kern-Isberner, W Rödder (2004)
Belief revision and information fusion on optimum entropyInt. J. Intell. Syst., 19
T Lukasiewicz (2007)
Nonmonotonic probabilistic logics under variable-strength inheritance with overriding: complexity, algorithms, and implementationInt. J. Approx. Reasoning, 44
D Dubois, L Godo, RL Mántaras, H Prade (1993)
Qualitative reasoning with imprecise probabilitiesJ. Intell. Inf. Syst., 2
T Lukasiewicz (2001)
Probabilistic logic programming with conditional constraintsACM Trans. Comput. Log., 2
AM Frisch, P Haddawy (1994)
Anytime deduction for probabilistic logicArtif. Intell., 69
W Rödder (2003)
On the measurability of knowledge acquisition, query processingInt. J. Approx. Reasoning, 33
R Ng, VS Subrahmanian (1992)
Probabilistic logic programmingInf. Comput., 101
G Kern-Isberner, T Lukasiewicz (2004)
Combining probabilistic logic programming with the power of maximum entropyArtif. Intell., 157
R Ng, VS Subrahmanian (1991)
A semantical framework for supporting subjective and conditional probabilities in deductive databasesJ. Automat. Reason., 10
T Lukasiewicz (2005)
Weak nonmonotonic probabilistic logicsArtif. Intell., 168
In conditional probabilistic logic programming, given a query, the two most common forms for answering the query are either a probability interval or a precise probability obtained by using the maximum entropy principle. The former can be noninformative (e.g., interval [0, 1]) and the reliability of the latter is questionable when the priori knowledge is imprecise. To address this problem, in this paper, we propose some methods to quantitatively measure if a probability interval or a single probability is sufficient for answering a query. We first propose an approach to measuring the ignorance of a probabilistic logic program with respect to a query. The measure of ignorance (w.r.t. a query) reflects how reliable a precise probability for the query can be and a high value of ignorance suggests that a single probability is not suitable for the query. We then propose a method to measure the probability that the exact probability of a query falls in a given interval, e.g., a second order probability. We call it the degree of satisfaction. If the degree of satisfaction is high enough w.r.t. the query, then the given interval can be accepted as the answer to the query. We also prove our measures satisfy many properties and we use a case study to demonstrate the significance of the measures.
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 27, 2012
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.