Markov logic uses weighted formulas to compactly encode a probability distribution over possible worlds. Despite the use of logical formulas, Markov logic networks (MLNs) can be difficult to interpret, due to the often counter-intuitive meaning of their weights. To address this issue, we propose a method to construct a possibilistic logic theory that exactly captures what can be derived from a given MLN using maximum a posteriori (MAP) inference. Unfortunately, the size of this theory is exponential in general. We therefore also propose two methods which can derive compact theories that still capture MAP inference, but only for specific types of evidence. These theories can be used, among others, to make explicit the hidden assumptions underlying an MLN or to explain the predictions it makes.
An accepted belief is a proposition considered likely enough by an agent, to be inferred from as if it were true. This paper bridges the gap between probabilistic and logical representations of accepted beliefs. To this end, natural properties of relations on propositions, describing relative strength of belief are augmented with some conditions ensuring that accepted beliefs form a deductively closed set. This requirement turns out to be very restrictive. In particular, it is shown that the sets of accepted belief of an agent can always be derived from a family of possibility rankings of states. An agent accepts a proposition in a given context if this proposition is considered more possible than its negation in this context, for all possibility rankings in the family. These results are closely connected to the non-monotonic 'preferential' inference system of Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor and the so-called plausibility functions of Friedman and Halpern. The extent to which probability theory is compatible with acceptance relations is laid bare. A solution to the lottery paradox, which is considered as a major impediment to the use of non-monotonic inference is proposed using a special kind of probabilities (called lexicographic, or big-stepped). The setting of acceptance relations also proposes another way of approaching the theory of belief change after the works of Gauml;rdenfors and colleagues. Our view considers the acceptance relation as a primitive object from which belief sets are derived in various contexts. This paper deals with the extraction of default rules from a database of examples. The proposed approach is based on a special kind of probability distributions, called "big-stepped probabilities", which are known to provide a semantics for non-monotonic reasoning. The rules which are learnt are genuine default rules, which could be used (under some conditions) in a non-monotonic reasoning system and can be encoded in possibilistic logic.