CS代写 COMP 424 – Artificial Intelligence Bayesian Networks – cscodehelp代写
COMP 424 – Artificial Intelligence Bayesian Networks
Instructor: Jackie CK Cheung and Readings: R&N Ch 14
Describing the World Probabilistically
Copyright By cscodehelp代写 加微信 cscodehelp
Naïve Bayes Model
• A common assumption in early diagnosis is that the symptoms are independent of each other given the disease.
• Let s1, .., sn be the symptoms exhibited by a patient (e.g. fever, headache, etc.). Let D be the patient’s disease.
• Using the Naive Bayes assumption:
P(D, s1, …, sn) = P(D) P(s1 | D) … P(sn | D)
Sympt om 1
Diagno sis
Bayesian networks
• Bayesian networks represent conditional independence relationships in a systematic way using a graphical model.
• Specify conditional independencies using graph structure. • Graphical model = graph structure + parameters.
Bayesian networks – Basics
• Nodes are random variables
• Edges specify dependency between random variables
• E.g., B: bronchitis, C: cough, F: fever (binary random variables)
• Edges specify that B directly influences probability of C, F.
• This results in conditional probability distributions:
Semantics of network structure
Bayesian networks, formally speaking
Network structure and conditional independence
Network structure and conditional independence
Network structure and conditional independence
B=patient has bronchitis, F=patient has fever, C=patient has cough
In above graph, C ⊥ F | B, but not C ⊥ F
C is “conditionally independent” of F, given B.
Example 2 (from Poole and Mackworth)
• The agent receives a report that everyone is leaving a
building and it must decide whether there is a fire in the
• The report sensor is noisy (for eg. human error or mischief).
• The fire alarm going off can cause everyone to leave but it’s not
always the case (for eg. everyone is in the middle of an exciting
• The fire alarm usually goes off when there is a fire but the alarm
could have been tampered with.
• A fire also causes smoke to come out from the building.
Question: Is there a fire? Should the agent alert the fire brigade?
Constructing Belief Nets: Variables
Variables and domains:
• Tampering = true when there is tampering with the alarm.
• Fire = true when there is a fire.
• Alarm = true when the alarm sounds.
• Smoke = true when there is smoke.
• Leaving = true if there is an exodus of people.
• Report = true if there is a report given by someone of people
Are there any independence relationships between these variables?
Constructing Belief Nets: Structure
How many parameters?
Consider the variables in the order of causality:
• Fire is independent of Tampering.
• Alarm depends on both Fire and Tampering.
• Smoke depends only on Fire. It is conditionally independent of Tampering and
Alarm given whether there is a Fire.
• Leaving only depends on Alarm and not directly on Fire or Tampering or
• Report depends directly only on Leaving.
The network topology expresses the conditional independencies above.
Constructing Belief Nets: Structure
+1T F+1 +4A S+2
How many parameters?
= 12 are sufficient
(24 incl. complements.)
Consider the variables in the order of causality:
• Fire is independent of Tampering.
• Alarm depends on both Fire and Tampering.
• Smoke depends only on Fire. It is conditionally independent of Tampering and
Alarm given whether there is a Fire.
• Leaving only depends on Alarm and not directly on Fire or Tampering or
• Report depends directly only on Leaving.
The network topology expresses the conditional independencies above.
Constructing Belief Nets: CPDs
P(A| T, F)
Causality and Bayes Net Structure
• Directionality of edges should ideally specify causality, but
this doesn’t necessarily have to be the case.
• E.g., fire and tampering cause alarm
• Also we may not know direction of causality!
• Another graph structure (and corresponding CPTs) can produce the same joint probabilities!
• But not following causality usually results in more model parameters.
Inference in Bayes Nets
• What’s the point of all this? Answer questions about state of the world!
• Find joint probability distribution
• Answer questions using conditional probabilities • Determine causes
• Find explanations
• Use probability rules to figure out answers!
• Key operations:
• Rewrite joint probabilities as conditional probabilities
• Marginalize out variables
Inference in BNs: Joint prob.
Full joint distribution: P(Tampering, Fire, Alarm, Smoke, Leaving, Report) ?? Use structure to solve this!
= P(Tampering) X P(Fire) X P(Alarm | Tampering, Fire) X P(Smoke | Fire) X P(Leaving | Alarm) X P(Report | Leaving)
= 0.02 x 0.01 x 0.5 x 0.9 x 0.88 x 0.75
P(A| T, F)
Inference in BNs: Joint prob.
Full joint distribution: P(~T, F, A, S, L, ~R) ??
P(A| T, F)
Inference in BNs: Joint prob.
Full joint distribution: P(~T, F, A, S, L, ~R) ?? = P(~T) X P(F) X P(A | ~T, F) X P(S | F)
X P(L | A) X P(~R | L)
= 0.98 x 0.01 x 0.99 x 0.9 x 0.88 x 0.25
P(A| T, F)
Inference in BNs: Marginal prob.
Marginal probabilities: Eg. Prob of getting a report P(R) ??
P(A| T, F)
Inference in BNs: Marginal prob.
Marginal probabilities: Eg. Prob of getting a report P(R) ??
= P(R = 1) = ∑t,f,a,s,l P(T=t, F=f, A=a, S=s, L=l, R = 1)
= ∑t,f,a,s,l P(T) P(F) P(A|T,F) P(S|F) P(L|A) P(R=1|L)
Sum over domain of marginalized vars: T={0,1}, F={0,1}, A={0,1}, S={0,1}, L={0, 1}
P(A| T, F)
Inference in BNs: Causal reasoning
Causal reasoning: Eg. Prob of receiving a report in case of fire, P(R | F) ??
P(A| T, F)
Inference in BNs: Causal reasoning
Causal reasoning: Eg. Prob of receiving a report in case of fire, P(R | F) ?? P(R = 1 | F = 1) = P(R = 1, F = 1) / P(F = 1)
= ∑t,a,s,l P(T=t,F=1,A=a,S=s,L=l, R=1) / ∑t,a,s,l,r P(T=t,F=1,A=a,S=s,L=l,R=r)
P(A| T, F)
Inference in BNs: Explanations
P(A| T, F)
Evidential reasoning or explanation.
• Suppose agent receives a report.
• Prob that there is a fire?
• Prob that there is tampering?
Inference in BNs: Explanations
• Suppose agent receives a report.
• Prob that there is a fire? P(F | R) = P(R , F) / P(R) = P(R | F) P(F) / P(R)
• Prob that there is tampering? P(T | R) = P(T ,R) / P(R)
• Suppose agent sees smoke instead.
• Prob that there is a fire?
• Prob that there is tampering?
P(A| T, F)
Evidential reasoning or explanation.
Inference in BNs: Explanations
• Suppose agent receives a report.
• Prob that there is a fire? P(F | R) = P(R , F) / P(R) = P(R | F) P(F) / P(R)
• Prob that there is tampering? P(T | R) = P(T ,R) / P(R)
• Suppose agent sees smoke instead.
• Prob that there is a fire? P(F | S) = P(F , S) / P(S)
• Prob that there is tampering? P(T | S) = P(T , S) / P(S)
P(A| T, F)
Evidential reasoning or explanation.
Inference in BNs: Explanations
Evidential reasoning or explanation. Compare posteriors with priors!
• Suppose agent receives a report.
• Prob that there is a fire? P(F | R) = 0.2305
• Prob that there is tampering? P(T | R) = 0.399
• Suppose agent sees smoke instead.
• Prob that there is a fire? P(F | S) = 0.476
• Prob that there is tampering? P(T | S) = 0.02
P(A| T, F)
Inference in BNs: Explanations
• Suppose agent receives a report and sees smoke.
P(A| T, F)
Evidential reasoning or explanation.
Inference in BNs: Explanations
• Suppose agent receives a report and sees smoke.
• Prob that there is a fire? P(F | R, S) = P(F, R, S) / P(R , S) = 0.964
• Prob that there is tampering? P(T | R, S) = P(T ,R, S) / P(R, S) = 0.0286
P(A| T, F)
Evidential reasoning or explanation.
Inference in BNs: Explanations
• Suppose agent receives a report and sees smoke.
• Prob that there is a fire? P(F | R, S) = P(F, R, S) / P(R , S) = 0.964
• Prob that there is tampering? P(T | R, S) = P(T ,R, S) / P(R, S) = 0.0286
Compare to: P(F | R) = 0.2305 and P(T | R) = 0.399. This is called explaining away. P(F | R, ~S) = 0.0294 and P(T | R, ~S) = 0.501.
P(A| T, F)
Evidential reasoning or explanation.
Types of queries for graphical models
Inference in BNs: MAP queries
Calculating the MAP from the posteriors.
• Suppose agent receives a report.
• Prob that there is a fire? P(F | R) = 0.2305.
What’s the MAP?
P(A| T, F)
Inference in BNs: MAP queries
Calculating the MAP from the posteriors.
• Suppose agent receives a report.
• Prob that there is a fire? P(F | R) = 0.2305.
• Prob that there is tampering? P(T | R) = 0.399
F = 0 MAP?
P(A| T, F)
Inference in BNs: MAP queries
Calculating the MAP from the posteriors.
• Suppose agent receives a report.
• Prob that there is a fire? P(F | R) = 0.2305.
• Prob that there is tampering? P(T | R) = 0.399
• Suppose agent sees smoke AND receives a report.
• Prob that there is a fire? P(F | R, S) MAP?
F = 0 T = 0
P(A| T, F)
Other examples of MAP queries
• In speech recognition:
• given a speech signal
• determine sequence of words most likely to have generated signal.
• In medical diagnosis:
• given a patient
• determine the most probable diagnosis.
• In robotics:
• given sensor readings
• determine the most probably location of the robot.
Complexity of inference in Bayes Nets
• Given a Bayes net and a random variable X, deciding whether P(X=x) > 0 is NP-hard.
• Bad news:
No general inference procedure that will work efficiently
for all network configurations.
• Good news:
For particular families of networks, inference can be done efficiently. E.g. tree structured graphs, including Naïve Bayes Model!
Naïve Bayes model
• A common assumption in early diagnosis is that the symptoms are independent of each other given the disease.
• Let s1, .., sn be the symptoms exhibited by a patient (e.g. fever, headache, etc.). Let D be the patient’s disease.
• Using the Naive Bayes assumption:
P(D, s1, …, sn) = P(D) P(s1 | D) … P(sn | D)
Sympt om 1
Diagno sis
程序代写 CS代考 加微信: cscodehelp QQ: 2235208643 Email: kyit630461@163.com
