The generative model of the functional CHURCH program is contained in the CHURCH function "take-a-sample". We chose the conditional P( I | D=0, L=1, S=0) = P(Intelligence | easy_course, weak_letter, SAT=low) to study the precision and efficiency of our simple rejection sampling scheme, because P( I=1 | D=0, L=1, S=0) <= 0.05.
Here is a summary of the domains due to the modifications of Gordon et al. (2014):
Val(D) = <d0, d1> = <easy, hard>
Val(I) = <i0, i1> = <non smart, smart>
Val(G) = <g0, g1> = <A, B+C> = <excellent, good+average>
Val(S) = <s0, s1> = <low score, high score>
Val(L) = <l0, l1> = <strong_letter, weak_letter>
The number of samples was set to 20000 in this run. This number could in principle be increased to get a better precision of estimates. The value of the variable math_expect (= parameter theta in the HOEFFDING inequality) was computed by the exact 'variable-elimination' inference method in the probabilistic programming language FIGARO. The sampling method used in our CHURCH-program is the simple-to-understand 'forward sampling'. The screen-shot presented was generated by using the PlaySpace environment of WebCHURCH.
The inferred E(I | D=0, L=1, S=0) = P(I=1 | D=0, L=1, S=0) is near 0.03 and much lower than its unconditional counterparts E(D) = P(I=1) = 0.30. So the verbal interpretation is "If your course is easy, you have a weak recommendation letter, a below average SAT score and my model is true, then I'm sorry to say that's very unlikely that you are a smart student".