Skip to main content

probability or statistics - Problems encoding a Bayesian Network with just five nodes using ProbabilityDistribution


Question summary


I had recently asked this question where problems encoding a Bayesian Network were linked to the use of MultinomialDistribution. While that problem can be avoided using EmpiricalDistribution, there remains an issue with using ProbabilityDistribution for larger networks as it seems: While Probability can be used for inference with 4 nodes, it will not evaluate for the "full" example network of 5 nodes -- which still is far removed from real application demands. Why is this so? What can be done about it?


Bayesian Network Example


Again I would like to use the (simple) example that is given on page 53 in Probabilistic Graphical Models (2009), by Daphne Koller and Neir Friedman:


BayesianNetwork



The network has five nodes (random variables):



  • Difficulty of a class taken by a student (0 = easy, 1 = hard)

  • Intelligence of the student (0 = low, 1 = high)

  • Grade achieved by the student (1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C)

  • SAT score of the student (0 = low, 1 = high)

  • Letter of recommendation by the teacher (0 = False, 1 = True)


We would like to use this network to do probabilistic inference (causal or evidential) like: "What is the probability of the student achieving an A, given that he is intelligent?"


Encoding the Bayesian Network in Mathematica



Essentially the Bayesian Network is a sparse way to define the joint probability distribution function for the random variables using the chain rule of probability theory:


$ \begin{align} P(I,D,G,S,L) = P(I) \times P(D) \times P(G|I,D) \times P(S|I) \times P(L|G) \end{align} $


I am encoding this in Mathematica as follows:


(* nodes without parents *)
distI = BernoulliDistribution[ 0.3 ]; (* prior probability of high intelligence *)
distD = BernoulliDistribution[ 0.4 ]; (* prior probability of hard class *)

(* nodes with parents = conditional probability distributions *)
(* conditional distribution of the grade *)
cpdG = Function[ { i, d },

With[
{
p = Piecewise[
{
{ { 0.3, 0.4, 0.3 }, i == 0 && d == 0 },
{ { 0.05, 0.25, 0.7 }, i == 0 && d == 1 },
{ { 0.9, 0.08, 0.02 }, i == 1 && d == 0 },
{ { 0.5, 0.3, 0.2 }, i == 1 && d == 1 }
}
]

},
EmpiricalDistribution[ p -> Range[3] ]
]
];

(* conditional distribution for the SAT score *)
cpdS = Function[ i,
With[
{
θ = Piecewise[

{
{ 0.05, i == 0 },
{ 0.8, i == 1 }
}
] (* probability of a high SAT score *)
},
BernoulliDistribution[θ]
]
];


(* conditional probability function for the Letter *)
cpdL = Function[ g,
With[
{
θ = Piecewise[
{
{ 0.9, g == 1 },
{ 0.6, g == 2 },
{ 0.01, g == 3 }
}

]
},
BernoulliDistribution[θ]
]
];

(* BayesNetwork = Joint Probability Distribution Function *)
(* B4 = P(I,D,G,L) *)
distB4 = ProbabilityDistribution[
PDF[ distI, i] PDF[ distD, d] PDF[ cpdG[i,d], g] PDF[ cpdL[g], l],

{i, 0, 1, 1},
{d, 0, 1, 1},
{g, 1, 3, 1},
{l, 0, 1, 1}
];

(* B5 = P(I,D,G,S,L) *)
distB5 = ProbabilityDistribution[
PDF[ distI, i] PDF[ distD, d] PDF[ cpdG[i,d], g] PDF[ cpdS[i], s] PDF[ cpdL[g], l],
{i, 0, 1, 1},

{d, 0, 1, 1},
{g, 1, 3, 1},
{s, 0, 1, 1},
{l, 0, 1, 1}
];

Doing Inference


Now we would like to ask the question as stated above:


Probability[ g == 1 \[Conditioned] i == 1, {i,d,g,l} \[Distributed] distB4 ]



0.74



Probability[ g == 1 \[Conditioned] i == 1, {i,d,g,s,l} \[Distributed] distB5 ]


Probability[ ] is returned unevaluted.



Why is this the case? What can be done about it - after all 5 nodes should not be too far a stretch?



Answer





As indicated in the answer given by WRI here, the interplay of Piecewise and ProbabilityDistribution is tricky and -- so my temporary verdict -- is best avoided.


Indeed, using indicator functions, e.g. Boole, as a replacement for Piecewise solves the issue:


(* nodes without parents remain unchanged *)
(* CPDs are redefined using Boole instead of Piecewise *)

(* conditional distribution of the grade *)
cpdG = Function[ {i,d},
With[
{

p = Plus[
{0.3 , 0.4 , 0.3 } Boole[ i == 0 && d == 0 ],
{0.05, 0.25, 0.7 } Boole[ i == 0 && d == 1 ],
{0.9 , 0.08, 0.02} Boole[ i == 1 && d == 0 ],
{0.5 , 0.3 , 0.2 } Boole[ i == 1 && d == 1 ]
]
},
EmpiricalDistribution[ p -> Range[3] ]
]
];


(*conditional distribution for the SAT score*)
cpdS = Function[ i,
With[
{
θ = Plus[
0.05 Boole[ i == 0 ],
0.8 Boole[ i == 1 ]
] (*probability of a high SAT score*)
},

BernoulliDistribution[θ]
]
];

(*conditional probability function for the Letter*)
cpdL = Function[ g,
With[
{
θ = Plus[
0.9 Boole[ g == 1 ],

0.6 Boole[ g == 2 ],
0.01 Boole[ g == 3 ]
]
},
BernoulliDistribution[θ]
]
];

(* B5 = P(I,D,G,S,L) complete BN *)
distB5 = ProbabilityDistribution[

PDF[ distI, i] PDF[ distD, d] PDF[ cpdG[i,d], g] PDF[ cpdS[i], s] PDF[ cpdL[g], l],
{i, 0, 1, 1}, {d, 0, 1, 1}, {g, 1, 3, 1}, {s, 0, 1, 1}, {l, 0, 1, 1}
];

Now doing inference for the complete joint probability distribution as specified by the Bayesian Network works out fine:


Probability[ g == 1\[Conditioned] i == 1, {i,d,g,s,l} \[Distributed] distB5 ]


0.74




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....