: We consider two approaches to giving semantics to first-order logics of probability. The first approach puts a probability on the domain, and is appropriate for giving semantics to formulas involving statistical information such as "The probability that a randomly chosen bird flies is greater than .9." The second approach puts a probability on possible worlds, and is appropriate for giving semantics to formulas describing degrees of belief, such as "The probability that Tweety (a particular bird) flies is greater than .9." We show that the two approaches can be easily combined, allowing us to reason in a straightforward way about statistical information and degrees of belief. We then consider axiomatizing these logics. In general, it can be shown that no complete axiomatization is possible. We provide axiom systems that are sound and complete in cases where a complete axiomatization is possible, showing that they do allow us to capture a great deal of interesting reasoning about prob...

Graphical representations for probabilistic relationships have recently received considerable attention in A1. Qualitative probabilistic networks abstract from the usual numeric representations by encoding only qualitative relationships, which are inequality constraints on the joint probability distribution over the variables. Although these constraints are insufficient to determine probabilities uniquely, they are designed to justify the deduction of a class of relative likelihood conclusions that imply useful decision-making properties. Two types of qualitative relationship are defined, each a probabilistic form of monotonicity constraint over a group of variables. Qualitative influences describe the direction of the relationship between two variables. Qualitative synergies describe interactions among influences. The probabilistic definitions chosen justify sound and efficient inference procedures based on graphical manipulations of the network. These procedures answer queries about qualitative relationships among variables separated in the network and determine structural properties of optimal assignments to decision variables.

Predicate transformers facilitate reasoning about imperative programs, including those exhibiting demonic non-deterministic choice. Probabilistic predicate transformers extend that facility to programs containing probabilistic choice, so that one can in principle determine not only whether a program is guaranteed to establish a certain result, but also its probability of doing so. We bring together independent work of Claire Jones and Jifeng He, showing how their constructions can be made to correspond � from that link between a predicate-based and a relation-based view of probabilistic execution we are able to propose `probabilistic healthiness conditions', generalising those of Dijkstra for ordinary predicate transformers. The associated calculus seems suitable for exploring further the rigorous derivation of imperative probabilistic programs.

Abstract: What should it mean for an agent toknowor believe an assertion is true with probability:99? Di erent papers [FH88, FZ88a, HMT88] givedi erent answers, choosing to use quite di erent probability spaces when computing the probability that an agent assigns to an event. We showthat each choice can be understood in terms of a betting game. This betting game itself can be understood in terms of three types of adversaries in uencing three di erent aspects of the game. The rst selects the outcome of all nondeterministic choices in the system� the second represents the knowledge of the agent's opponent in the betting game (this is the key place the papers mentioned above di er) � the third is needed in asynchronous systems to choose the time the bet is placed. We illustrate the need for considering all three types of adversaries with a number of examples. Given a class of adversaries, we show howto assign probability spaces to agents in a way most appropriate for that class, where \most appropriate " is made precise in terms of this betting game. We conclude by showing how di erent assignments of probability spaces (corresponding to di erent opponents) yield di erent levels of guarantees in probabilistic coordinated attack.

This paper proposes and investigates an approach to deduction in probabilistic logic, using as its medium a language that generalizes the propositional version of Nilsson's probabilistic logic by incorporating conditional probabilities. Unlike many other approaches to deduction in probabilistic logic, this approach is based on inference rules and therefore can produce proofs to explain how conclusions are drawn. We show how these rules can be incorporated into an anytime deduction procedure that proceeds by computing increasingly narrow probability intervals that contain the tightest entailed probability interval. Since the procedure can be stopped at any time to yield partial information concerning the probability range of any entailed sentence, one can make a tradeoff between precision and computation time. The deduction method presented here contrasts with other methods whose ability to perform logical reasoning is either limited or requires finding all truth assignments consistent ...

We provide a framework for reasoning about information-hiding requirements in multiagent systems and for reasoning about anonymity in particular. Our framework employs the modal logic of knowledge within the context of the runs and systems framework, much in the spirit of our earlier work on secrecy [9]. We give several definitions of anonymity with respect to agents, actions, and observers in multiagent systems, and we relate our definitions of anonymity to other definitions of information hiding, such as secrecy. We also give probabilistic definitions of anonymity that are able to quantify an observer's uncertainty about the state of the system. Finally, we relate our definitions of anonymity to other formalizations of anonymity and information hiding, including definitions of anonymity in the process algebra CSP and definitions of information hiding using function views.

Knowledge-base (KB) systems must typically deal with imperfection in knowledge, e.g. in the form of imcompleteness, inconsistency, uncertainty, to name a few. Currently KB system development is mainly based on the expert system technology. Expert systems, through their support for rule-based programming, uncertainty, etc., offer a convenient framework for KB system development. But they require the user to be well versed with the low level details of system implementation. The manner in which uncertainty is handled has little mathematical basis. There is no decent notion of query optimization, forcing the user to take the responsibility for an efficient implementation of the KB system. We contend KB system development can and should take advantage of the deductive database technology, which overcomes most of the above limitations. An important problem here is to extend deductive databases into providing a systematic basis for rule-based programming with imperfect knowledge. In this paper, we are interested in an exension handling probabilistic knowledge.

Given a knowledge base KB containing first-order and statistical facts, we consider a principled method, called the random-worlds method, for computing a degree of belief that some formula ' holds given KB . If we are reasoning about a world or system consisting of N individuals, then we can consider all possible worlds, or first-order models, with domain f1; : : : ; Ng that satisfy KB , and compute the fraction of them in which ' is true. We define the degree of belief to be the asymptotic value of this fraction as N grows large. We show that when the vocabulary underlying ' and KB uses constants and unary predicates only, we can naturally associate an entropy with each world. As N grows larger, there are many more worlds with higher entropy. Therefore, we can use a maximum-entropy computation to compute the degree of belief. This result is in a similar spirit to previous work in physics and artificial intelligence, but is far more general. Of equal interest to the result itself are...

We study the problem of probabilistic deduction with conditional constraints over basic events. We show that globally complete probabilistic deduction with conditional constraints over basic events is NP-hard. We then concentrate on the special case of probabilistic deduction in conditional constraint trees. We elaborate very efficient techniques for globally complete probabilistic deduction. In detail, for conditional constraint trees with point probabilities, we present a local approach to globally complete probabilistic deduction, which runs in linear time in the size of the conditional constraint trees. For conditional constraint trees with interval probabilities, we show that globally complete probabilistic deduction can be done in a global approach by solving nonlinear programs. We show how these nonlinear programs can be transformed into equivalent linear programs, which are solvable in polynomial time in the size of the conditional constraint trees. 1. Introduction Dealing wit...

. We present a new approach to probabilistic logic programs with a possible worlds semantics. Classical program clauses are extended by a subinterval of [0; 1] that describes the range for the conditional probability of the head of a clause given its body. We show that deduction in the defined probabilistic logic programs is computationally more complex than deduction in classical logic programs. More precisely, restricted deduction problems that are Pcomplete for classical logic programs are already NP-hard for probabilistic logic programs. We then elaborate a linear programming approach to probabilistic deduction that is efficient in interesting special cases. In the best case, the generated linear programs have a number of variables that is linear in the number of ground instances of purely probabilistic clauses in a probabilistic logic program. 1 INTRODUCTION There is already a quite extensive literature on probabilistic propositional logics and their various dialects. The most fa...