Scribd
Upload
55 views

Bayesian Networks: Section 1 - 2

Bayesian networks provide a graphical, probabilistic representation of the relationships between variables. The network topology encodes conditional independence relationships, and conditional probability tables associated with each node compactly specify the full joint distribution. Bayesian networks allow compact representation of distributions through exploitation of independence, with structure based on causal relationships that domain experts can easily define.

Uploaded by

chakravarthyashok
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views

Bayesian Networks: Section 1 - 2

Bayesian networks provide a graphical, probabilistic representation of the relationships between variables. The network topology encodes conditional independence relationships, and conditional probability tables associated with each node compactly specify the full joint distribution. Bayesian networks allow compact representation of distributions through exploitation of independence, with structure based on causal relationships that domain experts can easily define.

Uploaded by

chakravarthyashok
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 16

Bayesian networks

Chapter 14
Section 1 – 2
Outline
• Syntax
• Semantics
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) = πi = 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


n
guarantees:
P (X1, … ,Xn) = πi =1 P (Xi | X1, … , Xi-1)
n
= πi =1P (Xi | Parents(Xi))
(by construction)
(chain rule)
»
–
Example
• Suppose we choose the ordering M, J, A, B, E

P(J | M) = P(J)?

•
•
Example
• Suppose we choose the ordering M, J, A, B, E

P(J | M) = P(J)?
P(A | J, M) = P(A | J)? P(A | J, M) = P(A)?

• No
•
Example
• Suppose we choose the ordering M, J, A, B, E

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
• Suppose we choose the ordering M, J, A, B, E

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)? 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
• Suppose we choose the ordering M, J, A, B, E

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)? 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
• 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

You might also like