But not so much attention has been paid to the fact that there are many logically distinguishable and recurrent forms and combinations of evidence that can serve to activate an inference network. Different forms of evidence require different methods for establishing the credibility or believability of evidence. This is a most important step in the fusion of evidence since credibility-related considerations form the very foundation for all subsequent arguments based on evidence. Part of my talk involves how these important credibility-related foundations are established in the analysis of inference networks. It is also true that evidence performs different roles in the analysis of inference networks.
Some evidence directly instantiates nodes or probabilistic variables on an inference network.
Such evidence is said to be directly relevant evidence. But other evidence, termed indirectly relevant or ancillary evidence, serves to justify the probabilistic strength of the arcs or linkages on an inference network. There is some controversy at present about the role of ancillary evidence in the analysis of Bayes's Nets that I will also address. In the process, I will show how many of the original insights Wigmore had 1913 about the construction of inference networks deserve more serious consideration than they are in fact receiving today. Short biography David A. Schum - received the B.A. and M.A. degrees from Southern Methodist University and the Ph.D. degree from Ohio State University, the latter in 1964.