Ideal Reformulation of Belief Networks

The intelligent reformulation or restructuring of a belief network can greatly increase the efficiency of inference. However, time expended for reformulation is not available for performing inference. Thus, under time pressure, there is a tradeoff between the time dedicated to reformulating the network and the time applied to the implementation of a solution. We investigate this partition of resources into time applied to reformulation and time used for inference. We shall describe first general principles for computing the ideal partition of resources under uncertainty. These principles have applicability to a wide variety of problems that can be divided into interdependent phases of problem solving. After, we shall present results of our empirical study of the problem of determining the ideal amount of time to devote to searching for clusters in belief networks. In this work, we acquired and made use of probability distributions that characterize (1) the performance of alternative heuristic search methods for reformulating a network instance into a set of cliques, and (2) the time for executing inference procedures on various belief networks. Given a preference model describing the value of a solution as a function of the delay required for its computation, the system selects an ideal time to devote to reformulation.Comment: Appears in Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1990

Monte Carlo Inference via Greedy Importance Sampling

We present a new method for conducting Monte Carlo inference in graphical models which combines explicit search with generalized importance sampling. The idea is to reduce the variance of importance sampling by searching for significant points in the target distribution. We prove that it is possible to introduce search and still maintain unbiasedness. We then demonstrate our procedure on a few simple inference tasks and show that it can improve the inference quality of standard MCMC methods, including Gibbs sampling, Metropolis sampling, and Hybrid Monte Carlo. This paper extends previous work which showed how greedy importance sampling could be correctly realized in the one-dimensional case.Comment: Appears in Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI2000

Posterior Predictive Treatment Assignment for Estimating Causal Effects with Limited Overlap

Estimating causal effects with propensity scores relies upon the availability of treated and untreated units observed at each value of the estimated propensity score. In settings with strong confounding, limited so-called "overlap" in propensity score distributions can undermine the empirical basis for estimating causal effects and yield erratic finite-sample performance of existing estimators. We propose a Bayesian procedure designed to estimate causal effects in settings where there is limited overlap in propensity score distributions. Our method relies on the posterior predictive treatment assignment (PPTA), a quantity that is derived from the propensity score but serves different role in estimation of causal effects. We use the PPTA to estimate causal effects by marginalizing over the uncertainty in whether each observation is a member of an unknown subset for which treatment assignment can be assumed unconfounded. The resulting posterior distribution depends on the empirical basis for estimating a causal effect for each observation and has commonalities with recently-proposed "overlap weights" of Li et al. (2016). We show that the PPTA approach can be construed as a stochastic version of existing ad-hoc approaches such as pruning based on the propensity score or truncation of inverse probability of treatment weights, and highlight several practical advantages including uncertainty quantification and improved finite-sample performance. We illustrate the method in an evaluation of the effectiveness of technologies for reducing harmful pollution emissions from power plants in the United States

Bayesian Time-of-Flight for Realtime Shape, Illumination and Albedo

We propose a computational model for shape, illumination and albedo inference in a pulsed time-of-flight (TOF) camera. In contrast to TOF cameras based on phase modulation, our camera enables general exposure profiles. This results in added flexibility and requires novel computational approaches. To address this challenge we propose a generative probabilistic model that accurately relates latent imaging conditions to observed camera responses. While principled, realtime inference in the model turns out to be infeasible, and we propose to employ efficient non-parametric regression trees to approximate the model outputs. As a result we are able to provide, for each pixel, at video frame rate, estimates and uncertainty for depth, effective albedo, and ambient light intensity. These results we present are state-of-the-art in depth imaging. The flexibility of our approach allows us to easily enrich our generative model. We demonstrate that by extending the original single-path model to a two-path model, capable of describing some multipath effects. The new model is seamlessly integrated in the system at no additional computational cost. Our work also addresses the important question of optimal exposure design in pulsed TOF systems. Finally, for benchmark purposes and to obtain realistic empirical priors of multipath and insights into this phenomena, we propose a physically accurate simulation of multipath phenomena

Time-Dependent Utility and Action Under Uncertainty

We discuss representing and reasoning with knowledge about the time-dependent utility of an agent's actions. Time-dependent utility plays a crucial role in the interaction between computation and action under bounded resources. We present a semantics for time-dependent utility and describe the use of time-dependent information in decision contexts. We illustrate our discussion with examples of time-pressured reasoning in Protos, a system constructed to explore the ideal control of inference by reasoners with limit abilities.Comment: Appears in Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1991

Improving pairwise comparison models using Empirical Bayes shrinkage

Comparison data arises in many important contexts, e.g. shopping, web clicks, or sports competitions. Typically we are given a dataset of comparisons and wish to train a model to make predictions about the outcome of unseen comparisons. In many cases available datasets have relatively few comparisons (e.g. there are only so many NFL games per year) or efficiency is important (e.g. we want to quickly estimate the relative appeal of a product). In such settings it is well known that shrinkage estimators outperform maximum likelihood estimators. A complicating matter is that standard comparison models such as the conditional multinomial logit model are only models of conditional outcomes (who wins) and not of comparisons themselves (who competes). As such, different models of the comparison process lead to different shrinkage estimators. In this work we derive a collection of methods for estimating the pairwise uncertainty of pairwise predictions based on different assumptions about the comparison process. These uncertainty estimates allow us both to examine model uncertainty as well as perform Empirical Bayes shrinkage estimation of the model parameters. We demonstrate that our shrunk estimators outperform standard maximum likelihood methods on real comparison data from online comparison surveys as well as from several sports contexts.Comment: 9 page

Generalized Variational Inference: Three arguments for deriving new Posteriors

We advocate an optimization-centric view on and introduce a novel generalization of Bayesian inference. Our inspiration is the representation of Bayes' rule as infinite-dimensional optimization problem (Csiszar, 1975; Donsker and Varadhan; 1975, Zellner; 1988). First, we use it to prove an optimality result of standard Variational Inference (VI): Under the proposed view, the standard Evidence Lower Bound (ELBO) maximizing VI posterior is preferable to alternative approximations of the Bayesian posterior. Next, we argue for generalizing standard Bayesian inference. The need for this arises in situations of severe misalignment between reality and three assumptions underlying standard Bayesian inference: (1) Well-specified priors, (2) well-specified likelihoods, (3) the availability of infinite computing power. Our generalization addresses these shortcomings with three arguments and is called the Rule of Three (RoT). We derive it axiomatically and recover existing posteriors as special cases, including the Bayesian posterior and its approximation by standard VI. In contrast, approximations based on alternative ELBO-like objectives violate the axioms. Finally, we study a special case of the RoT that we call Generalized Variational Inference (GVI). GVI posteriors are a large and tractable family of belief distributions specified by three arguments: A loss, a divergence and a variational family. GVI posteriors have appealing properties, including consistency and an interpretation as approximate ELBO. The last part of the paper explores some attractive applications of GVI in popular machine learning models, including robustness and more appropriate marginals. After deriving black box inference schemes for GVI posteriors, their predictive performance is investigated on Bayesian Neural Networks and Deep Gaussian Processes, where GVI can comprehensively improve upon existing methods.Comment: 103 pages, 23 figures (comprehensive revision of previous version

Approximate Computational Approaches for Bayesian Sensor Placement in High Dimensions

Since the cost of installing and maintaining sensors is usually high, sensor locations are always strategically selected. For those aiming at inferring certain quantities of interest (QoI), it is desirable to explore the dependency between sensor measurements and QoI. One of the most popular metric for the dependency is mutual information which naturally measures how much information about one variable can be obtained given the other. However, computing mutual information is always challenging, and the result is unreliable in high dimension. In this paper, we propose an approach to find an approximate lower bound of mutual information and compute it in a lower dimension. Then, sensors are placed where highest mutual information (lower bound) is achieved and QoI is inferred via Bayes rule given sensor measurements. In addition, Bayesian optimization is introduced to provide a continuous mutual information surface over the domain and thus reduce the number of evaluations. A chemical release accident is simulated where multiple sensors are placed to locate the source of the release. The result shows that the proposed approach is both effective and efficient in inferring QoI

Using Recursive Partitioning to Find and Estimate Heterogenous Treatment Effects In Randomized Clinical Trials

Heterogeneous treatment effects can be very important in the analysis of randomized clinical trials. Heightened risks or enhanced benefits may exist for particular subsets of study subjects. When the heterogeneous treatment effects are specified as the research is being designed, there are proper and readily available analysis techniques. When the heterogeneous treatment effects are inductively obtained as an experiment's data are analyzed, significant complications are introduced. There can be a need for special loss functions designed to find local average treatment effects and for techniques that properly address post selection statistical inference. In this paper, we tackle both while undertaking a recursive partitioning analysis of a randomized clinical trial testing whether individuals on probation, who are low risk, can be minimally supervised with no increase in recidivism.Comment: 21 pages, 1 figure, under revie

False confidence, non-additive beliefs, and valid statistical inference

Statistics has made tremendous advances since the times of Fisher, Neyman, Jeffreys, and others, but the fundamental and practically relevant questions about probability and inference that puzzled our founding fathers remain unanswered. To bridge this gap, I propose to look beyond the two dominating schools of thought and ask the following three questions: what do scientists need out of statistics, do the existing frameworks meet these needs, and, if not, how to fill the void? To the first question, I contend that scientists seek to convert their data, posited statistical model, etc., into calibrated degrees of belief about quantities of interest. To the second question, I argue that any framework that returns additive beliefs, i.e., probabilities, necessarily suffers from {\em false confidence}---certain false hypotheses tend to be assigned high probability---and, therefore, risks systematic bias. This reveals the fundamental importance of {\em non-additive beliefs} in the context of statistical inference. But non-additivity alone is not enough so, to the third question, I offer a sufficient condition, called {\em validity}, for avoiding false confidence, and present a framework, based on random sets and belief functions, that provably meets this condition. Finally, I discuss characterizations of p-values and confidence intervals in terms of valid non-additive beliefs, which imply that users of these classical procedures are already following the proposed framework without knowing it.Comment: 60 pages, 12 figures. Comments welcome at https://www.researchers.one/article/2019-02-