The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
From statistical knowledge bases to degrees of belief
Open accessAbstract
An intelligent agent will often be uncertain about various properties of its environment, and when acting in that environment it will frequently need to quantify its uncertainty. For example, if the agent wishes to employ the expected-utility paradigm of decision theory to guide its actions, it will need to assign degrees of belief (subjective probabilities) to various assertions. Of course, these degrees of belief should not be arbitrary, but rather should be based on the information available to the agent. This paper describes one approach for inducing degrees of belief from very rich knowledge bases, that can include information about particular individuals, statistical correlations, physical laws, and default rules. We call our approach the random-worlds method. The method is based on the principle of indifference: it treats all of the worlds the agent considers possible as being equally likely. It is able to integrate qualitative default reasoning with quantitative probabilistic reasoning by providing a language in which both types of information can be easily expressed. Our results show that a number of desiderata that arise in direct inference (reasoning from statistical information to conclusions about individuals) and default reasoning follow directly from the semantics of random worlds. For example, random worlds captures important patterns of reasoning such as specificity, inheritance, indifference to irrelevant information, and default assumptions of independence. Furthermore, the expressive power of the language used and the intuitive semantics of random worlds allow the method to deal with problems that are beyond the scope of many other nondeductive reasoning systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Circumscription—A form of non-monotonic reasoning
McCarthy, J. (1980) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90011-9 · Cited by 2,017
Cited by
L -diversity: Privacy beyond k -anonymity
Machanavajjhala, A., Kifer, D., Gehrke, J., & Venkitasubramaniam, M. (2007) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/1217299.1217302 · Cited by 3,617
Richardson, M., & Domingos, P. (2006) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-006-5833-1 · Cited by 2,676
L-diversity: privacy beyond k-anonymity
Machanavajjhala, A., Gehrke, J., Kifer, D., & Venkitasubramaniam, M. (2006) · 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'06) · doi:10.1109/icde.2006.1 · Cited by 2,362
Efficient query evaluation on probabilistic databases
Dalvi, N., & Suciu, D. (2007) · The VLDB Journal · doi:10.1007/s00778-006-0004-3 · Cited by 962
M-invariance: towards privacy preserving re-publication of dynamic datasets
Xiao, X., & Tao, Y. (2007) · Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data · doi:10.1145/1247480.1247556 · Cited by 466
Metadata
- Authors
- Bacchus, F., Grove, A. J., Halpern, J. Y., & Koller, D.
- Venue
- Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-11
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 75-143
- ISSN
- 0004-3702 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2106898966
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From statistical knowledge bases to degrees of belief. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0004-3702(96)00003-3
- The paper
- Bacchus, F., Grove, A. J., Halpern, J. Y., & Koller, D. (1996). From statistical knowledge bases to degrees of belief. Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-3702(96)00003-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.