Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1304.3446

Intelligent Probabilistic Inference

Ross D. Shachter
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The analysis of practical probabilistic models on the computer demands a convenient representation for the available knowledge and an efficient algorithm to perform inference. An appealing representation is the influence diagram, a network that makes explicit the random variables in a model and their probabilistic dependencies. Recent advances have developed solution procedures based on the influence diagram. In this paper, we examine the fundamental properties that underlie those techniques, and the information about the probabilistic structure that is available in the influence diagram representation. The influence diagram is a convenient representation for computer processing while also being clear and non-mathematical. It displays probabilistic dependence precisely, in a way that is intuitive for decision makers and experts to understand and communicate. As a result, the same influence diagram can be used to build, assess and analyze a model, facilitating changes in the formulation and feedback from sensitivity analysis. The goal in this paper is to determine arbitrary conditional probability distributions from a given probabilistic model. Given qualitative information about the dependence of the random variables in the model we can, for a specific conditional expression, specify precisely what quantitative information we need to be able to determine the desired conditional probability distribution. It is also shown how we can find that probability distribution by performing operations locally, that is, over subspaces of the joint distribution. In this way, we can exploit the conditional independence present in the model to avoid having to construct or manipulate the full joint distribution. These results are extended to include maximal processing when the information available is incomplete, and optimal decision making in an uncertain environment. Influence diagrams as a computer-aided modeling tool were developed by Miller, Merkofer, and Howard [5] and extended by Howard and Matheson [2]. Good descriptions of how to use them in modeling are in Owen [7] and Howard and Matheson [2]. The notion of solving a decision problem through influence diagrams was examined by Olmsted [6] and such an algorithm was developed by Shachter [8]. The latter paper also shows how influence diagrams can be used to perform a variety of sensitivity analyses. This paper extends those results by developing a theory of the properties of the diagram that are used by the algorithm, and the information needed to solve arbitrary probability inference problems. Section 2 develops the notation and the framework for the paper and the relationship between influence diagrams and joint probability distributions. The general probabilistic inference problem is posed in Section 3. In Section 4 the transformations on the diagram are developed and then put together into a solution procedure in Section 5. In Section 6, this procedure is used to calculate the information requirement to solve an inference problem and the maximal processing that can be performed with incomplete information. Section 7 contains a summary of results.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ross D. Shachter. 2013-03-27. Intelligent Probabilistic Inference. https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3446

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗