D. Dubois and H. Prade (1989), \Handling Uncertainty in Expert Systems: Pitfalls, Diculties, Remedies," The reliability of Expert Systems, E. Hollnagel (ed), pp.64-118, Ellis Horwood Limited. Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Proof of the Correctness of EMYCIN Sequential Propagation Under .. - Luo, Zhang (1999) (Correct)
....the work of Heckerman. Moreover, clearly it is dicult to get a good intuitive explanation for the Heckerman version of certainty factors. Whereas, just as shown in Section II, the original version of the certainty factor can have a satisfactory intuitive explanation. In addition, Dubois and Prade [6] thought that what Heckerman had done actually dispelled the advantage of the EMYCIN certainty factor. Accordingly, we believe that, in the consistency problem between the EMYCIN model and probability theory, our work is also better than Heckerman s work. Perhaps, in the work of Pearl [14] it is ....
D. Dubois and H. Prade (1989), \Handling Uncertainty in Expert Systems: Pitfalls, Diculties, Remedies," The reliability of Expert Systems, E. Hollnagel (ed), pp.64-118, Ellis Horwood Limited.
ILSNCC: A PROSPECTOR-Like Uncertain Reasoning Model - Luo, Zhang (1997) (Correct)
....theory. This research is supported by the large grant from the Australian Research Council (A49530850) Buxton failed to nd a solution to this problem. Heckerman promises to provide a solution by way of modifying the de nition of the EMYCIN certainty factor; however, Dubois and Prade [6] have said that Heckerman s method dispels the advantage of the EMYCIN certainty factor, i.e. the advantage that the certainty factor can distinguish belief from doubt in an assessment. For this reason, another solution to this problem is worth considering. The primary objective of this paper is ....
....prior probabilities by human experts, but the consistency between the model and probability theory, seems to contain contradictory elements. In the course of exploring possible paths for solving the problem, one of the most important attempts is in the work of Heckerman [10] But some researchers [6] feel that the work of Heckerman dispels the advantage of the EMYCIN certainty factor model. Therefore, another solution to this problem is worth considering. In this paper, a study is performed to develop an alternative solution to this problem. We o er four contributions: 1. Unlike the ....
Dubois, D. and Prade, H., \Handling Uncertainty in Expert Systems: Pitfalls, Diculties, Remedies ", The reliability of Expert Systems Hollnagel, E. (Ed), Ellis Horwood Limited, pp. 64-118, 1989.
To Normalize the Relationship between the Certainty Factor.. - Luo, Zhang (1997) (Correct)
....issue involved in the inconsistency, Buxton failed to give a solution. Under the constraint that no node in an inference network needs to be supplied with any value, Heckerman tried to suggest a solution by way of modifying the definition of the EMYCIN certainty factor. But Dubois and Prade in [Dub et al..89] pointed out that what Heckerman did dispelled the advantage of the EMYCIN certainty factor, i.e. the certainty factor can distinguish belief from doubt in an assessment. We think that in a good solution, besides human experts need not to offer values to prior probabilities, the semantics of ....
Dubois, D. and Prade, H., Handling Uncertainty in Expert Systems: Pitfalls, Difficulties, Remedies. The reliability of Expert Systems (Ed. Hollnagel, E.), Ellis Horwood Limited, 64-118, 1989.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC