Abstract:(l) I have enough evidence to render the sentence S probable. (la) So, relative to what I know, it is rational of me to believe S. (2) Now that I have more evidence, S may no longer be probable. (2a) So now, relative to what I know, it is not rational of me to believe S. These seem a perfectly ordinary, common sense, pair of situations. Generally and vaguely, I take them to embody what I shall call probabilistic inference. This form of inference is clearly non-monotonic. Relatively few people have taken this form of inference, based on high probability, to serve as a foundation for non-monotonic logic or for a logical or defeasible inference. There are exceptions: Jane Nutter [16] thinks that sometimes probability has something to do with non-monotonic reasoning. Judea Pearl [ 17] has recently been exploring the possibility. There are any number of people whom one might call probability enthusiasts who feel that probability provides all the answers by itself, with no need of help from logic. Cheeseman [1], Henrion [5] and others think it useful to look at a distribution of probabilities over a whole algebra of statements, to update that distribution in the light of new evidence, and to use the latest updated distribution of probability over the algebra as a basis for planning and decision making. A slightly weaker form of this approach is captured by Nilsson [15], where one assumes certain probabilities for certain statements, and infers the probabilities, or constraints on the probabilities of other statement. None of this corresponds to what I call probabilistic inference. All of the inference that is taking place, either in Bayesian updating, or in probabilistic logic, is strictly deductive. Deductive inference, particularly that concerned with the distribution of classical probabilities or chances, is of great importance. But this is not to say that there is no important role for what earlier logicians have called "ampliative" or "inductive" or "scientific" inference, in which the conclusion goes beyond the premises, asserts more than do the premises. This depends on what David Israel [6] has called "real rules of inference". It is characteristic of any such logic or inference procedure that it can go wrong: that statements accepted at one point may be rejected at a later point. Research underlying the results reported here has been partially supported by the Signals Warfare Center of the United States Army.

Probabilistic Inferences in Bayesian Networks

Bayesian networks and probabilistic reasoning about scientific evidence when there is a lack of data

Inference and Learning in Hybrid Probabilistic Network.

On Pinning Reachability of Probabilistic Boolean Control Networks

Relationships between probabilistic Boolean networks and dynamic Bayesian networks as models of gene regulatory networks

A modeling framework for detecting and leveraging node-level information in Bayesian network inference

Bayesian networks in neuroscience: a survey

Interference Effects in Quantum Belief Networks

A probabilistic graphical model for assessing equivocal evidence

Reasoning about causal relationships: Inferences on causal networks.

Dynamic Knowledge Inference Based on Bayesian Network Learning

Probabilistic Boolean networks: a rule-based uncertainty model for gene regulatory networks

Generating Probabilistic Boolean Networks from a Prescribed Stationary Distribution

A comparison of algorithms for inference and learning in probabilistic graphical models

The Quantified Boolean Bayesian Network: Theory and Experiments with a Logical Graphical Model

An algebra of bayesian belief universes for knowledge-based systems

Probabilistic and Non-Monotonic Inference

Variational Inference for Bayesian Neural Networks under Model and Parameter Uncertainty

Quantum inference on Bayesian networks

Visualizing the Consequences of Evidence in Bayesian Networks

Bayesian inference: More than Bayes's theorem