Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #212097. 	[Title] Uncertain Inferences and Uncertain Conclusions [Abstract] Uncertainty may be taken to characterize inferences, their conclusions, their premises or all three. Under some treatments of uncertainty, the inference itself is never characterized by uncertainty. We explore both the significance of uncertainty in the premises and in the conclusion of an argument that involves uncertainty. We argue that for uncertainty to characterize the conclusion of an inference is natural, but that there is an interplay between uncertainty in the premises and uncertainty in the procedure of argument itself. We show that it is possible in principle to incorporate all uncertainty in the premises, rendering uncertainty arguments deductively valid. But we then argue (1) that this does not reflect human argument, (2) that it is computationally costly, and (3) that the gain in simplicity obtained by allowing uncertainty in inference can sometimes outweigh the loss of flexibility it entails. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #212107. 	[Title] Possible World Partition Sequences: A Unifying Framework for Uncertain Reasoning [Abstract] When we work with information from multiple sources, the formalism each employs to handle uncertainty may not be uniform. In order to be able to combine these knowledge bases of different formats, we need to first establish a common basis for characterizing and evaluating the different formalisms, and provide a semantics for the combined mechanism. A common framework can provide an infrastructure for building an integrated system, and is essential if we are to understand its behavior. We present a unifying framework based on an ordered partition of possible worlds called partition sequences, which corresponds to our intuitive notion of biasing towards certain possible scenarios when we are uncertain of the actual situation. We show that some of the existing formalisms, namely, default logic, autoepistemic logic, probabilistic conditioning and thresholding (generalized conditioning), and possibility theory can be incorporated into this general framework. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1112071. 	[Title] Sequential Thresholds: Context Sensitive Default Extensions [Abstract] Default logic encounters some conceptual difficulties in representing common sense reasoning tasks. We argue that we should not try to formulate modular default rules that are presumed to work in all or most circumstances. We need to take into account the importance of the context which is continuously evolving during the reasoning process. Sequential thresholding is a quantitative counterpart of default logic which makes explicit the role context plays in the construction of a non-monotonic extension. We present a semantic characterization of generic non-monotonic reasoning, as well as the instan-tiations pertaining to default logic and sequential thresholding. This provides a link between the two mechanisms as well as a way to integrate the two that can be beneficial to both. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #212097 has the title `Uncertain Inferences and Uncertain Conclusions  
` and the abstract `Uncertainty may be taken to characterize inferences, their conclusions, their premises or all three. Under some treatments of uncertainty, the inference itself is never characterized by uncertainty. We explore both the significance of uncertainty in the premises and in the conclusion of an argument that involves uncertainty. We argue that for uncertainty to characterize the conclusion of an inference is natural, but that there is an interplay between uncertainty in the premises and uncertainty in the procedure of argument itself. We show that it is possible in principle to incorporate all uncertainty in the premises, rendering uncertainty arguments deductively valid. But we then argue (1) that this does not reflect human argument, (2) that it is computationally costly, and (3) that the gain in simplicity obtained by allowing uncertainty in inference can sometimes outweigh the loss of flexibility it entails. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #212097 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #212097 has the title `Uncertain Inferences and Uncertain Conclusions  
` and the abstract `Uncertainty may be taken to characterize inferences, their conclusions, their premises or all three. Under some treatments of uncertainty, the inference itself is never characterized by uncertainty. We explore both the significance of uncertainty in the premises and in the conclusion of an argument that involves uncertainty. We argue that for uncertainty to characterize the conclusion of an inference is natural, but that there is an interplay between uncertainty in the premises and uncertainty in the procedure of argument itself. We show that it is possible in principle to incorporate all uncertainty in the premises, rendering uncertainty arguments deductively valid. But we then argue (1) that this does not reflect human argument, (2) that it is computationally costly, and (3) that the gain in simplicity obtained by allowing uncertainty in inference can sometimes outweigh the loss of flexibility it entails. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #212097 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Probabilistic_Methods