  This paper reports on empirical work aimed at comparing evidential reasoning
techniques. While there is prima facie evidence for some conclusions, this i6
work in progress; the present focus is methodology, with the goal that
subsequent results be meaningful. The domain is a network of UNIX* cycle
servers, and the task is to predict properties of the state of the network from
partial descriptions of the state. Actual data from the network are taken and
used for blindfold testing in a betting game that allows abstention. The focal
technique has been Kyburg's method for reasoning with data of varying relevance
to a particular query, though the aim is to be able eventually to compare
various uncertainty calculi. The conclusions are not novel, but are
instructive. 1. All of the calculi performed better than human subjects, so
unbiased access to sample experience is apparently of value. 2. Performance
depends on metric: (a) when trials are repeated, net = gains - losses favors
methods that place many bets, if the probability of placing a correct bet is
sufficiently high; that is, it favors point-valued formalisms; (b) yield =
gains/(gains + lossee) favors methods that bet only when sure to bet correctly;
that is, it favors interval-valued formalisms. 3. Among the calculi, there were
no clear winners or losers. Methods are identified for eliminating the bias of
the net as a performance criterion and for separating the calculi effectively:
in both cases by posting odds for the betting game in the appropriate way.
