An Introduction To Artificial Intelligence: Chapter 13 &14.1-14.2: Uncertainty & Bayesian Networks

An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
Chapter 13 &14.1-14.2: Uncertainty & Bayesian Networks
Ramin Halavati
(halavati@ce.sharif.edu)
Outline
• Uncertainty
• Probability
• Syntax and Semantics
• Inference
• Independence and Bayes' Rule
• Bayesian Network
Uncertainty
Let action At = leave for airport t minutes before flight
Will At get me there on time?
Problems:
1. partial observability (road state, other drivers' plans, etc.)
2. noisy sensors (traffic reports)
3. uncertainty in action outcomes (flat tire, etc.)
4. immense complexity of modeling and predicting traffic
Hence a purely logical approach either

1. risks falsehood: “A25 will get me there on time”, or
2. leads to conclusions that are too weak for decision making:
“A25 will get me there on time if there's no accident on the bridge and it doesn't
rain and my tires remain intact etc etc.”
(A1440 might reasonably be said to get me there on time but I'd have to stay
overnight in the airport …)
Methods for handling
uncertainty
• Default or nonmonotonic logic:
– Assume my car does not have a flat tire
– Assume A25 works unless contradicted by evidence
• Issues: What assumptions are reasonable? How to handle
contradiction?
• Rules with fudge factors:

– A25 |→0.3 get there on time
– Sprinkler |→ 0.99 WetGrass
– WetGrass |→ 0.7 Rain
• Issues: Problems with combination, e.g., Sprinkler causes
Rain??
• Probability
– Model agent's degree of belief
– Given the available evidence,
– A25 will get me there on time with probability 0.04
–
–
Probability
Probabilistic assertions summarize effects of
– laziness: failure to enumerate exceptions, qualifications,
etc.
– ignorance: lack of relevant facts, initial conditions, etc.
Subjective probability:
• Probabilities relate propositions to agent's own state
of knowledge
e.g., P(A25 | no reported accidents) = 0.06
These are not assertions about the world
Probabilities of propositions change with new evidence:

e.g., P(A25 | no reported accidents, 5 a.m.) = 0.15
»
•
Making decisions under
uncertainty
Suppose I believe the following:
P(A25 gets me there on time | …) = 0.04
• Which action to choose?

Depends on my preferences for missing flight vs.
time spent waiting, etc.
– Utility theory is used to represent and infer preferences
– Decision theory = probability theory + utility theory
–
Syntax
• Basic element: random variable
• Similar to propositional logic: possible worlds defined by assignment of

values to random variables.
• Boolean random variables
e.g., Cavity (do I have a cavity?)
• Discrete random variables
e.g., Weather is one of <sunny,rainy,cloudy,snow>
• Domain values must be exhaustive and mutually exclusive

• Elementary proposition constructed by assignment of a value to a
• Complex propositions formed from elementary propositions and
standard logical connectives e.g., Weather = sunny  Cavity = false
»
»
» random variable: e.g., Weather =
sunny, Cavity = false
» (abbreviated as cavity)
Axioms of probability
• For any propositions A, B
– 0 ≤ P(A) ≤ 1
– P(true) = 1 and P(false) = 0
– P(A  B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A  B)
–
•
Prior probability
• Prior or unconditional probabilities of propositions
e.g., P(Cavity = true) = 0.1 and P(Weather = sunny) = 0.72
correspond to belief prior to arrival of any (new)
evidence
• Joint probability distribution for a set of random

variables gives the probability of every atomic
event on those random variables
P(Weather,Cavity) = a 4 × 2 matrix of values:
Weather = sunny rainy cloudy snow

Cavity = true 0.144 0.02 0.016 0.02
Cavity = false 0.576 0.08 0.064 0.08
• Every question about a domain can be answered
by the joint distribution
»
Inference by Numeration
• Start with the joint probability distribution:
• For any proposition φ, sum the atomic events

where it is true: P(φ) = Σω:ω╞φ P(ω)
•
•
•
Inference by
enumeration
• Start with the joint probability distribution:
• Can also compute conditional probabilities:

P(cavity | toothache)
= P(cavity  toothache)
P(toothache)
= 0.016+0.064
0.108 + 0.012 + 0.016 + 0.064
= 0.4
Conditional probability
• Conditional or posterior probabilities

e.g., P(cavity | toothache) = 0.8
i.e., given that toothache is all I know
• New evidence may be irrelevant,

allowing simplification, e.g.,
P(cavity | toothache, sunny) = P(cavity |
toothache) = 0.8
»
Conditional probability
• Definition of conditional probability:

P(a | b) = P(a  b) / P(b) if P(b) > 0
• Product rule gives an alternative formulation:

P(a  b) = P(a | b) P(b) = P(b | a) P(a)
• Chain rule is derived by successive application of

product rule:
P(X1, …,Xn)
= P(X1,...,Xn-1) P(Xn | X1,...,Xn-1)
= P(X1,...,Xn-2) P(Xn-1 | X1,...,Xn-2) P(Xn | X1,...,Xn-1)
=…
= πi= 1^n P(Xi | X1, … ,Xi-1)
Independence
• A and B are independent iff
P(A|B) = P(A) or P(B|A) = P(B) or P(A, B) =
P(A) P(B)
P(Toothache, Catch, Cavity, Weather)

= P(Toothache, Catch, Cavity) P(Weather)
• 32 entries reduced to 12; for n independent

biased coins, O(2n) →O(n)
Bayes' Rule
• P(ab) = P(a | b) P(b) = P(b | a) P(a)
 Bayes' rule: P(a | b) = P(b | a) P(a) / P(b)
• Useful for assessing diagnostic probability from

causal probability:
– P(Cause|Effect) = P(Effect|Cause) P(Cause) / P(Effect)
– E.g., let M be meningitis, S be stiff neck:

P(m|s) = P(s|m) P(m) / P(s) = 0.8 × 0.0001 / 0.1 = 0.0008
– Note: posterior probability of meningitis still very small!
–
•
–
Bayes' Rule and
conditional independence
P(Cavity | toothache  catch)
= αP(toothache  catch | Cavity) P(Cavity)
= αP(toothache | Cavity) P(catch | Cavity) P(Cavity)
• This is an example of a naïve Bayes model:

P(Cause,Effect1, … ,Effectn) = P(Cause) πiP(Effecti|Cause)
• Total number of parameters is linear in n

•
–
Bayesian networks
• A simple, graphical notation for conditional
independence assertions and hence for compact
specification of full joint distributions
• Syntax:
– a set of nodes, one per variable
– a directed, acyclic graph (link ≈ "directly influences")
– a conditional distribution for each node given its
parents:
P (Xi | Parents (Xi))
• In the simplest case, conditional distribution

represented as a conditional probability table
(CPT) giving the distribution over Xi for each
combination of parent values
–
Example
• Topology of network encodes conditional
independence assertions:
• Weather is independent of the other variables

• Toothache and Catch are conditionally
independent given Cavity
Example
• I'm at work, neighbor John calls to say my alarm is ringing,
but neighbor Mary doesn't call. Sometimes it's set off by
minor earthquakes. Is there a burglar?
• Variables: Burglary, Earthquake, Alarm, JohnCalls,

MaryCalls
• Network topology reflects "causal" knowledge:

– A burglar can set the alarm off
– An earthquake can set the alarm off
– The alarm can cause Mary to call
– The alarm can cause John to call
Example contd.
Compactness
• A CPT for Boolean Xi with k Boolean parents has 2k rows
for the combinations of parent values
• Each row requires one number p for Xi = true

(the number for Xi = false is just 1-p)
• If each variable has no more than k parents, the complete

network requires O(n · 2k) numbers
• I.e., grows linearly with n, vs. O(2n) for the full joint
distribution
• For burglary net, 1 + 1 + 4 + 2 + 2 = 10 numbers (vs. 25-1 =

31)
Semantics
The full joint distribution is defined as the product of
the local conditional distributions:
n
P (X1, … ,Xn) = π i=1 P (Xi | Parents(Xi))
e.g., P(j  m  a  b  e)

= P (j | a) P (m | a) P (a | b, e) P (b) P (e)
Constructing Bayesian
networks
1. Choose an ordering of variables X1, … ,Xn
2. For i = 1 to n
– add Xi to the network
– select parents from X1, … ,Xi-1 such that
P (Xi | Parents(Xi)) = P (Xi | X1, ... Xi-1)
This choice of parents guarantees:

P (X1, … ,Xn) = πi =1n P (Xi | X1, … , Xi-1)
= πi =1P (Xi | Parents(X
n i))
(by construction)
(chain rule)
Example
• Suppose we choose the ordering M, J, A, B, E
P(J | M) = P(J)?
•
•
Example
P(J | M) = P(J)?
P(A | J, M) = P(A | J)? P(A | J, M) = P(A)?
• No
•
Example
P(J | M) = P(J)?
P(A | J, M) = P(A | J)? P(A | J, M) = P(A)? No
P(B | A, J, M) = P(B | A)?
P(B | A, J, M) = P(B)?
• No
•
Example
P(J | M) = P(J)?
P(B | A, J, M) = P(B | A)? Yes
P(B | A, J, M) = P(B)? No
P(E | B, A ,J, M) = P(E | A)?
P(E | B, A, J, M) = P(E | A, B)?
• No
Example
P(J | M) = P(J)?
P(B | A, J, M) = P(B | A)? Yes
P(B | A, J, M) = P(B)? No
P(E | B, A ,J, M) = P(E | A)? No
P(E | B, A, J, M) = P(E | A, B)? Yes
• No
Example contd.
• Deciding conditional independence is hard in noncausal

directions
• (Causal models and conditional independence seem
hardwired for humans!)
• Network is less compact: 1 + 2 + 4 + 2 + 4 = 13 numbers
needed
•
•
•
Summary
• Probability is a rigorous formalism for
uncertain knowledge
• Joint probability distribution specifies
probability of every atomic event
• Queries can be answered by summing
over atomic events
• For nontrivial domains, we must find a way
to reduce the joint size
• Independence and conditional
independence provide the tools
•
•
•
Summary
• Bayesian networks provide a natural
representation for (causally induced)
conditional independence
• Topology + CPTs = compact
representation of joint distribution
• Generally easy for domain experts to
construct

An Introduction To Artificial Intelligence: Chapter 13 &14.1-14.2: Uncertainty & Bayesian Networks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction To Artificial Intelligence: Chapter 13 &14.1-14.2: Uncertainty & Bayesian Networks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction To Artificial Intelligence: Chapter 13 &14.1-14.2: Uncertainty & Bayesian Networks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence

Chapter 13 &14.1-14.2: Uncertainty & Bayesian Networks

Hence a purely logical approach either

• Rules with fudge factors:

These are not assertions about the world

Probabilities of propositions change with new evidence:

• Which action to choose?

• Similar to propositional logic: possible worlds defined by assignment of

• Domain values must be exhaustive and mutually exclusive

• Joint probability distribution for a set of random

Weather = sunny rainy cloudy snow

• For any proposition φ, sum the atomic events

• Can also compute conditional probabilities:

• Conditional or posterior probabilities

• New evidence may be irrelevant,

• Definition of conditional probability:

• Product rule gives an alternative formulation:

• Chain rule is derived by successive application of

P(Toothache, Catch, Cavity, Weather)

• 32 entries reduced to 12; for n independent

• Useful for assessing diagnostic probability from

– E.g., let M be meningitis, S be stiff neck:

• This is an example of a naïve Bayes model:

• Total number of parameters is linear in n

• In the simplest case, conditional distribution

• Weather is independent of the other variables

• Variables: Burglary, Earthquake, Alarm, JohnCalls,

• Network topology reflects "causal" knowledge:

• Each row requires one number p for Xi = true

• If each variable has no more than k parents, the complete

• For burglary net, 1 + 1 + 4 + 2 + 2 = 10 numbers (vs. 25-1 =

e.g., P(j  m  a  b  e)

This choice of parents guarantees:

• Deciding conditional independence is hard in noncausal

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.