1 / 66

Abduction, Uncertainty, and Probabilistic Reasoning

Abduction, Uncertainty, and Probabilistic Reasoning. Chapters 13, 14, and more. Introduction. Abduction is a reasoning process that tries to form plausible explanations for abnormal observations Abduction is distinct different from deduction and induction Abduction is inherently uncertain

sinjin
Download Presentation

Abduction, Uncertainty, and Probabilistic Reasoning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Abduction, Uncertainty, and Probabilistic Reasoning Chapters 13, 14, and more

  2. Introduction • Abduction is a reasoning process that tries to form plausible explanations for abnormal observations • Abduction is distinct different from deduction and induction • Abduction is inherently uncertain • Uncertainty becomes an important issue in AI research • Some major formalisms for representing and reasoning about uncertainty • Mycin’s certainty factor (an early representative) • Probability theory (esp. Bayesian networks) • Dempster-Shafer theory • Fuzzy logic • Truth maintenance systems

  3. Abduction • Definition (Encyclopedia Britannica): reasoning that derives an explanatory hypothesis from a given set of facts • The inference result is a hypothesis, which if true, could explain the occurrence of the given facts • Examples • Dendral, an expert system to construct 3D structure of chemical compounds • Fact: mass spectrometer data of the compound and the chemical formula of the compound • KB: chemistry, esp. strength of different types of bounds • Reasoning: form a hypothetical 3D structure which meets the given chemical formula, and would most likely produce the given mass spectrum if subjected to electron beam bombardment

  4. Medical diagnosis • Facts: symptoms, lab test results, and other observed findings (called manifestations) • KB: causal associations between diseases and manifestations • Reasoning: one or more diseases whose presence would causally explain the occurrence of the given manifestations • Many other reasoning processes (e.g., word sense disambiguation in natural language process, image understanding, detective’s work, etc.) can also been seen as abductive reasoning.

  5. Comparing abduction, deduction and induction A => B A --------- B Deduction: major premise: All balls in the box are black minor premise: This ball is from the box conclusion: This ball is black Abduction: rule: All balls in the box are black observation: This ball is black explanation: This ball is from the box Induction: case: These balls are from the box observation: These balls are black hypothesized rule: All ball in the box are black A => B B ------------- Possibly A Whenever A then B but not vice versa ------------- Possibly A => B Induction: from specific cases to general rules Abduction and deduction: both from part of a specific case to other part of the case using general rules (in different ways)

  6. Characteristics of abduction reasoning • Reasoning results are hypotheses, not theorems (may be false even if rules and facts are true), • e.g., misdiagnosis in medicine • There may be multiple plausible hypotheses • When given rules A => B and C => B, and fact B both A and C are plausible hypotheses • Abduction is inherently uncertain • Hypotheses can be ranked by their plausibility if that can be determined • Reasoning is often a Hypothesize-and-test cycle • hypothesize phase: postulate possible hypotheses, each of which could explain the given facts (or explain most of the important facts) • test phase: test the plausibility of all or some of these hypotheses

  7. One way to test a hypothesis H is to test if something that is currently unknown but can be predicted from H is actually true. • If we also know A => D and C => E, then ask if D and E are true. • If it turns out D is true and E is false, then hypothesis A becomes more plausible (support for A increased, support for C decreased) • Alternative hypotheses compete with each other (Okam’s razor prefers simpler hypotheses) • Reasoning is non-monotonic • Plausibility of hypotheses can increase/decrease as new facts are collected (deductive inference determines if a sentence is true but would never change its truth value) • Some hypotheses may be discarded/defeated, and new ones may be formed when new observations are made

  8. Source of Uncertainty in Intelligent Systems • Uncertain data (noise) • Uncertain knowledge (e.g, causal relations) • A disorder may cause any and all POSSIBLE manifestations in a specific case • A manifestation can be caused by more than one POSSIBLE disorders • Uncertain reasoning results • Abduction and induction are inherently uncertain • Default reasoning, even in deductive fashion, is uncertain • Incomplete deductive inference may be uncertain

  9. Probabilistic Inference • Based on probability theory (especially Bayes’ theorem) • Well established discipline about uncertain outcomes • Empirical science like physics/chemistry, can be verified by experiments • Probability theory is too rigid to apply directly in many knowledge-based applications • Some assumptions have to be made to simplify the reality • Different formalisms have been developed in which some aspects of the probability theory are changed/modified. • We will briefly review the basics of probability theory before discussing different approaches to uncertainty • The presentation uses diagnostic process (an abductive and evidential reasoning process) as an example

  10. Probability of Events • Sample space and events • Sample space S: (e.g., all people in an area) • Events E1  S: (e.g., all people having cough) E2  S: (e.g., all people having cold) • Prior (marginal) probabilities of events • P(E) = |E| / |S| (frequency interpretation) • P(E) = 0.1 (subjective probability) • 0 <= P(E) <= 1 for all events • Two special events:  and S: P() = 0 and P(S) = 1.0 • Boolean operators between events (to form compound events) • Conjunctive (intersection): E1 ^ E2 ( E1  E2) • Disjunctive (union): E1 v E2 ( E1  E2) • Negation (complement): ~E (E = S – E) C

  11. ~E E1 E E2 E1 ^ E2 • Probabilities of compound events • P(~E) = 1 – P(E) because P(~E) + P(E) =1 • P(E1 v E2) = P(E1) + P(E2) – P(E1 ^ E2) • But how to compute the joint probability P(E1 ^ E2)? • Conditional probability (of E1, given E2) • How likely E1 occurs in the subspace of E2

  12. Independence assumption • Two events E1 and E2 are said to be independent of each other if (given E2 does not change the likelihood of E1) • Computation can be simplified with independent events • Mutually exclusive (ME) and exhaustive (EXH) set of events • ME: • EXH:

  13. Bayes’ Theorem • In the setting of diagnostic/evidential reasoning • Know prior probability of hypothesis conditional probability • Want to compute the posterior probability • Bayes’ theorem (formula 1): • If the purpose is to find which of the n hypotheses is more plausible given , then we can ignore the denominator and rank them use relative likelihood

  14. can be computed from and , if we assume all hypotheses are ME and EXH • Then we have another version of Bayes’ theorem: where , the sum of relative likelihood of all n hypotheses, is a normalization factor

  15. Probabilistic Inference for simple diagnostic problems • Knowledge base: • Case input: • Find the hypothesis with the highest posterior probability • By Bayes’ theorem • Assume all pieces of evidence are conditionally independent, given any hypothesis

  16. The relative likelihood • The absolute posterior probability • Evidence accumulation (when new evidence discovered) If El+1 present If El+1 present

  17. Assessing the Assumptions • Assumption 1: hypotheses are mutually exclusive and exhaustive • Single fault assumption (one and only hypothesis must true) • Multi-faults do exist in individual cases • Can be viewed as an approximation of situations where hypotheses are independent of each other and their prior probabilities are very small • Assumption 2: pieces of evidence are conditionally independent of each other, given any hypothesis • Manifestations themselves are not independent of each other, they are correlated by their common causes • Reasonable under single fault assumption • Not so when multi-faults are to be considered

  18. Limitations of the simple Bayesian system • Cannot handle well hypotheses of multiple disorders • Suppose are independent of each other • Consider a composite hypothesis • How to compute the posterior probability (or relative likelihood) • Using Bayes’ theorem

  19. B: burglar E: earth quake A: alarm set off E and B are independent But when A is given, they are (adversely) dependent because they become competitors to explain A P(B|A,E) <<P(B|A) but this is a very unreasonable assumption • Cannot handle causal chaining • Ex. A: weather of the year B: cotton production of the year C: cotton price of next year • Observed: A influences C • The influence is not direct (A –> B –> C) P(C|B, A) = P(C|B): instantiation of B blocks influence of A on C • Need a better representation and a better assumption

  20. Bayesian Networks (BNs) • Definition: BN = (DAG, CPD) • DAG: directed acyclic graph (BN’s structure) • Nodes: random variables (typically binary or discrete, but methods also exist to handle continuous variables) • Arcs: indicate probabilistic dependencies between nodes (lack of link signifies conditional independence) • CPD: conditional probability distribution (BN’s parameters) • Conditional probabilities at each node, usually stored as a table (conditional probability table, or CPT) • Root nodes are a special case – no parents, so just use priors in CPD:

  21. Example BN P(a0) = 0.001 A B C D E P(c0|a0) = 0.2 P(c0|a0) = 0.005 P(b0|a0) = 0.3 P(b0|a1) = 0.001 P(d0|b0, c0) = 0.1 P(d0|b0, c1) = 0.01 P(d0|b1, c0) = 0.01 P(d0|b1, c1) = 0.00001 P(e0|c0) = 0.4 P(e0|c1) = 0.002 Uppercase: variables (A, B, …) Lowercase: values/states of variables (A has two states a0 and a1) Note that we only specify P(a0) etc., not P(a1), since they have to add to one

  22. Netica • An commercial BN package by Norsys • Down load limited version for free from http://www.norsys.com/ • May also down load APIs

  23. Conditional independence and chaining • Conditional independence assumption where q is any set of variables (nodes) other than and its successors • blocks influence of other nodes on and its successors (q influences only through variables in ) • With this assumption, the complete joint probability distribution of all variables in the network can be represented by (recovered from) local CPDs by chaining these CPDs: q

  24. A B C D E Chaining: Example Computing the joint probability for all variables is easy: The joint distribution of all variables P(A, B, C, D, E) = P(E | A, B, C, D) P(A, B, C, D) by Bayes’ theorem = P(E | C) P(A, B, C, D) by cond. indep. assumption = P(E | C) P(D | A, B, C) P(A, B, C) = P(E | C) P(D | B, C) P(C | A, B) P(A, B) = P(E | C) P(D | B, C) P(C | A) P(B | A) P(A) For a particular state: P(a0, b0, c1, d1, e0) = P(a0)P(b0|a0)P(c1|a0)P(d1|b0, c1)P(e0| c1) = 0.001*0.3*0.8*0.99*0.002 = 4.752*10^(-7)

  25. B: burglar E: earth quake A: alarm set off P(E) = 0.002 P(B) = 0.01 P(E|A) = 0.167; P(B|A) = 0.835 P(E|A, E) = 1.0; P(B|A, E) = 0.0112 P(B|A, E) = P(B,A,E)/P(A,E) = P(B,A,E)/(P(B,A,E) + P(~B,A,E) = 0.01*0.002*0.9/(0.01*0.002*0.9 + 0.99*0.002*0.8) = 0.000018/(0.000018 + 0.001548) = 0.000018/0.001566 = 0.01123

  26. B C A A A B B C C Topological semantics • A node is conditionally independent of its non-descendants given its parents • A node is conditionally independent of all other nodes in the network given its parents, children, and children’s parents (also known as its Markov blanket) • The method called d-separation can be applied to decide whether a set of nodes X is independent of another set Y, given a third set Z Chain: A and C are independent, given B Converging: B and C are independent, NOT given A Diverging: B and C are independent, given A

  27. Inference tasks • Simple queries: Computer posterior probability P(Xi | E=e) • E.g., P(NoGas | Gauge=empty, Lights=on, Starts=false) • Posteriors for ALL nonevidence nodes • Priors for all nodes (E = ) • Conjunctive queries: • P(Xi, Xj | E=e) = P(Xi | E=e) P(Xj | Xi, E=e) • Optimal decisions:Decision networks or influence diagrams • include utility information and actions; • inference is to find P(outcome | action, evidence) • Value of information: Which evidence should we seek next? • Sensitivity analysis:Which probability values are most critical? • Explanation: Why do I need a new starter motor?

  28. MAP problems (explanation) • The solution provides a good explanation for your action • This is an optimization problem

  29. Approaches to inference • Exact inference • Enumeration • Variable elimination • Belief propagation in polytrees (singly connected BNs) • Clustering / junction tree algorithms • Approximate inference • Stochastic simulation / sampling methods • Markov chain Monte Carlo methods • Loopy propagation • Others • Mean field theory • Neural networks

  30. Inference by enumeration • To compute P(X|E=e), where X is a single variable and E is evidence (instantiation of a set of variables) • Add all of the terms (atomic event probabilities) from the full joint distribution that are consistent with E • If Y are the other (unobserved) variables, excluding X, then the posterior distribution P(X|E=e) = α P(X, e) = α ∑yP(X, e, Y) • Sum is over all possible instantiations of variables in Y • Each P(X, e, Y) term can be computed using the chain rule • Computationally expensive!

  31. A BC DE Example: Enumeration • P(xi) = Σπi P(xi | πi) P(πi) • Suppose we want P(D), and only the value of E is given as true • P (D|e) =  ΣA,B,CP(a, b, c, d, e) =  ΣA,B,CP(a) P(b|a) P(c|a) P(d|b,c) P(e|c) • With simple iteration to compute this expression, there’s going to be a lot of repetition (e.g., P(e|c) has to be recomputed every time we iterate over C for all possible assignments of A and B))

  32. Exercise: Enumeration p(smart)=.8 p(study)=.6 smart study p(fair)=.9 prepared fair pass Query: What is the probability that a student studied, given that they pass the exam?

  33. Variable elimination • Basically just enumeration, but with caching of local calculations • Linear for polytrees • Potentially exponential for multiply connected BNs • Exact inference in Bayesian networks is NP-hard!

  34. Variable elimination General idea: • Write query in the form • Iteratively • Move all irrelevant terms outside of innermost sum • Perform innermost sum, getting a new term • Insert the new term into the product

  35. Variable elimination 8 x 4 = 32 multiplications 8 x 2 + 4 + 2 = 22 multiplications Example: ΣAΣBΣCP(a) P(b|a) P(c|a) P(d|b,c) P(e|c) = ΣAΣBP(a)P(b|a)ΣCP(c|a) P(d|b,c) P(e|c) = ΣAP(a)ΣBP(b|a)ΣCP(c|a) P(d|b,c) P(e|c) for each state of A = a for each state of B = b compute fC(a, b) = ΣCP(c|a) P(d|b,c) P(e|c) compute fB(a) = ΣBP(b)fC(a, b) Compute result = ΣAP(a)fB(a) Here fC(a, b), fB(a) are called factors, which are vectors or matrices Variable C is summed out variable B is summed out

  36. Exercise: Variable elimination p(smart)=.8 p(study)=.6 smart study p(fair)=.9 prepared fair pass Query: What is the probability that a student is smart, given that they pass the exam?

  37. A BC D E = e F Belief Propagation • Singly connected network, SCN (also known as polytree) • there is at most one undirected path between any two nodes (i.e., the network is a tree if the direction of arcs are ignored) • The influence of the instantiated variable (evidence) spreads to the rest of the network along the arcs • The instantiated variable influences • its predecessors and successors differently (using CPT along opposite directions) • Computation is linear to the diameter of • the network (the longest undirected path) • Update belief (posterior) of every non-evidence node in one pass • For multi-connected net: conditioning

  38. A BC DE Conditioning • Conditioning: Find the network’s smallest cutset S (a set of nodes whose removal renders the network singly connected) • In this network, S = {A} or {B} or {C} or {D} • For each instantiation of S, compute the belief update with the belief propagation algorithm • Combine the results from all instantiations of S (each is weighted by P(S = s)) • Computationally expensive (finding the smallest cutset is in general NP-hard, and the total number of possible instantiations of S is O(2|S|))

  39. Junction Tree • Convert a BN to a junction tree • Moralization: add undirected edge between every pair of parents, then drop directions of all arc: Moralized Graph • Triangulation: add an edge to any cycle of length > 3: Triangulated Graph • A junction tree is a tree of cliques of the triangulated graph • Cliques are connected by links • A link stands for the set of all variables S shared by these two cliques • Each clique has a potential (similar to CPT), constructed from CPT of variables in the original BN

  40. A A C B C B A,B,C D E D E (B, C) A simple BN Triangulated graph B,C,D A (C, D) C B C,D.E Junction tree of 3 nodes D E Moralized graph Junction Tree • Example

  41. Junction Tree • Reasoning • Since it is now a tree, polytree algorithm can be applied, but now two cliques exchange P(S), the distribution over S, their shared variables. • Complexity: • O(n) steps, where n is the number of cliques • Each step is expensive if cliques are large (CPT exponential to clique size) • Construction of CPT of JT is expensive as well, but it needs to compute only once.

  42. Some comments on BN reasoning • Let be the set of all variables in a BN. Any BN reasoning task can be expressed in the form of calculating • This can be done by marginalization of the joint distribution P(X) over Y = X \ U \ V: where each entry P(x) = P(u,v,y) can be calculated by chain rule from CPTs • Computation can be done more efficiently using, say Junction tree, by utilizing variable interdependencies • Computational complexity of BN reasoning is proved to be NP-hard by reducing 3SAT problems to BN reasoning (Cooper 1990)

  43. Approximate inference: Direct sampling • Suppose you are given values for some subset of the variables, E, and want to infer distributions for unknown variables, Z • Randomly generate a very large number of instantiations from the BN according to the distribution • Generate instantiations for all variables – start at root variables and work your way “forward” in topological order • Rejection sampling: Only keep those instantiations that are consistent with the values for E • Use the frequency of values for Z to get estimated probabilities • Accuracy of the results depends on the size of the sample (asymptotically approaches exact results) • Very expensive and inefficient

  44. Likelihood weighting • Idea: Don’t generate samples that need to be rejected in the first place! • Sample only from the unknown variables Z and X (E are fixed) • Weight each sample according to the likelihood that it would occur, given the evidence E • A weight w is associated with each sample (w initialized to 1) • When a evidence node (say E1 = e1-0) is selected for weighting, its parents are already instantiated (say parents A and B are assigned state a and b) • Modify w = w * P(e1-0 | a, b) based on E1’s CPT • Repeat for the other evidence nodes

  45. Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm • So called because • Markov chain – each instance generated in the sample is dependent on the previous instance • Monte Carlo – statistical sampling method • Perform a random walk through variable assignment space, collecting statistics as you go • Start with a random instantiation, consistent with evidence variables • At each step, randomly select a non-evidence variable x, randomly sample its value by • Given enough samples, MCMC gives an accurate estimate of the true distribution of values

  46. Loopy Propagation • Belief propagation • Works only for polytrees (exact solution) • Each evidence propagates once throughout the network • Loopy propagation • Let propagation continue until the network stabilize (hope) • Experiments show • Many BN stabilize with loopy propagation • If it stabilizes, often yielding exact or very good approximate solutions • Analysis • Conditions for convergence and quality approximation are under intense investigation

  47. Noisy-Or BN • A special BN of binary variables (Peng & Reggia, Cooper) • Causation independence: parent nodes influence a child independently • Advantages: • One-to-one correspondence between causal links and causal strengths • Easy for humans to understand (acquire and evaluate KB) • Fewer # of probabilities needed in KB • Computation is less expensive • Disadvantage: less expressive (less general)

  48. Learning BN (from case data) • Needs for learning • Difficult to construct BN by humans (esp. CPT) • Experts’ opinions are often biased, inaccurate, and incomplete • Large databases of cases become available • What to learn • Parameter learning: learning CPT when DAG is known (easy) • Structural learning: learning DAG (hard) • Difficulties in learning DAG from case data • There are too many possible DAG when # of variables is large (more than exponential) n # of possible DAG 3 25 10 4*10^18 • Missing values in database • Noisy data

  49. BN Learning Approaches • Early effort: Based on variable dependencies (Pearl) • Find all pairs of variables that are dependent of each other (applying standard statistical method on the database) • Eliminate (as much as possible) indirect dependencies • Determine directions of dependencies • Learning results are often incomplete (learned BN contains indirect dependencies and undirected links)

  50. BN Learning Approaches • Bayesian approach (Cooper) • Find the most probable DAG, given database DB, i.e., max(P(DAG|DB))or max(P(DAG, DB)) • Based on some assumptions, a formula is developed to compute P(DAG, DB) for a given pair of DAG and DB • A hill-climbing algorithm (K2) is developed to search a (sub)optimal DAG • Compute CPTs after the DAG is determined • Extensions to handle some form of missing values

More Related