DOCSLIB.ORG

Loopy Belief Propagation in Bayesian Networks : Origin and Possibilistic Perspectives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Loopy Belief Propagation in Bayesian Networks : Origin and Possibilistic Perspectives Loopy Belief Propagation in Bayesian Networks : origin and possibilistic perspectives Amen Ajroud 1, M ohamed Nazih Omri 2, Habib Youssef 3, Salem Benferhat 4 1 ISET Sousse, TUNISIA − amen.ajroud@ isetso.rnu.tn 2 IPEIM Monastir - University of Monastir, TUNISIA − nazih.omri@ ipeim.rnu.tn 3 ISITC Hammam-Sousse - University of Monastir, TUNISIA − habib.youssef@ fsm.rnu.tn 4 CRIL, Lens - University of Artois, FRANCE − benferhat@ cril.univ-artois.fr Abstract : In this paper we present a synthesis of the work performed on two inference algorithms: the Pearl‘s belief propagation (BP) algorithm applied to Bayesian networks without loops (i.e. polytree) and the Loopy belief propagation (LBP) algorithm (inspired from the BP) which is applied to networks containing undirected cycles. It is known that the BP algorithm, applied to Bayesian networks with loops, gives incorrect numerical results i.e. incorrect posterior probabilities. Murphy and al. [7] find that the LBP algorithm converges on several networks and when this occurs, LBP gives a good approximation of the exact posterior probabilities. However this algorithm presents an oscillatory behaviour when it is applied to QMR (Quick Medical Reference) network [15]. This phenomenon prevents the LBP algorithm from converging towards a good approximation of posterior probabilities. W e believe that the translation of the inference computation problem from the probabilistic framework to the possibilistic framework will allow performance improvement of LBP algorithm. W e hope that an adaptation of this algorithm to a possibilistic causal network will show an improvement of the convergence of LBP. 1. Review of Bayesian Networks algorithms and have strong theoretical foundations [9],[10],[11] and [12]. Bayesian networks are powerful tools for Theoretically, a Bayesian network is a modelling causes and effects in a wide directed acyclic graph (DAG) made up of variety of domains. They use graphs nodes and causal edges. Each node has a capturing causality notion between variables, probability of having a certain value. Nodes and probability theory to express the are often binary, though a Bayesian network causality power. may have n-ary nodes. Parent and child Bayesian networks are very effective for nodes are defined as follows: a directed edge modelling situations where some exists from a parent to a child. Each child information is already known and incoming node will have a conditional probability data is uncertain or partially unavailable. table (CPT) based on parental values. There These networks also offer consistent are no directed cycles in the graph, though semantics for representing causes and effects there may be —loops“, or undirected cycles. via an intuitive graphical representation. An example network is shown in Figure 1, Because of all these capabilities, Bayesian with parents Ui sharing a child X. The node networks are regarded as systems for X is a child of the Ui's as well as being a uncertain knowledge representation and have parent to the Yi's. a large number of applications with efficient 1 Parents of X probabilistic inference in general has been proven to be NP-hard by Cooper [4]. U1 U2 Um - Approximate algorithms: they are the alternatives of the exact algorithms when the networks become very complex. They estimate the posterior probabilities in various ways. Approximating probabilistic inference was also shown to be NP-hard by Dagum X and Luby [8]. 3. Pearl‘s algorithm At the beginning of the 80s, Pearl published Y1 Y2 Yn an efficient message propagation inference Children of X algorithm for polytrees [6] and [10]. This algorithm is an exact belief propagation Figure 1: A Bayesian Network (polytree) procedure but works only for polytrees [12]. Consider the case of a general discrete node X having parents U1… Um and children 2. Bayesian Network inference Y1… Yn, as shown in Figure 1. Evidence will In bayesian network, the objective of be represented by E, with evidence —above“ inference is to compute P(X|E), the posterior X (evidence at ancestors of X) represented probabilities of some —query“ nodes (noted as e+ and evidence —below“ X (evidence at by X) given some observed value of descendants of X) as e-. evidence nodes (noted by E, E⊄X) [13]. A Knowledge of evidence can flow either simple form of it results when X is a single down the network (from parent to child) or node, i.e., computing the posterior marginal up the network (child to parent). W e use the probabilities of a single query node. notation π(Ui) to represent a message from W ith the constitution of a large Bayesian parent Ui to child and λ(Yj) for a message network, the feasibility of the probabilistic from child Yj to parent (see Figure 2) [13]. inference is tested: when the network is simple, the calculation of these probabilities U1 U2 is not very difficult. On the other hand, when λ(X) the network becomes very large, several π(U1) problems emerge: the inference requires an π(U2) enormous memory size and calculation λ(X) X becomes very complex or even, in certain cases, can not be completed. λ(Y1) The inference algorithms are classified in π(X) π(X) two groups [5]: λ(Y2) - Exact algorithms: these methods use the conditional independence contained in the Y1 Y2 networks and give, to each inference, the exact posterior probabilities. The exact Figure 2: Messages propagation 2 The posterior probability (belief) on node X, B- Iterate until no change occurs given its parents and children value, can be - (For each node X) if X has received all the computed as follows: P messages from its parents, calculate (x) - (For each node X) if X has received all the BEL(X)=P(X=x|e)= (X) (X) αλ π Q messages from its children, calculate (x) W here α is a normalizing constant, λ(X) = - (For each node X) if (x) has been P(e-|x) and π(X) = P(x|e+ ). calculated and X received all the messages To calculate λ(X) = P(e-|x), it is assumed from all its children (except Y), calculate that node X has received all λ messages XY(x) and send it to Y. from its c children. λAB(X) will represent the - (For each node X) if (x) has been λ message sent from node A to node B. calculated and X received all the messages from all parents (except U), calculate (x) c XU λ(x) = λ (x) and send it to U. ∏ Y j X i j=1 C- Compute BEL(X)=(x)(x) and normalize In the same way, in computing π(X) = The belief propagation algorithm has + P(x|e ), we assume that node X has polynomial complexity in the number of received all π messages from its p parents. nodes and converges in time proportional to Similarly, πAB(X) represents the π message the diameter of network [12]. In addition, sent from node A to node B. By applying the computation in a node is proportional to its summation over the CPT of node X, we can CPT size. W e point out that the exact express π(X) : probabilistic inference in general has been p proven to be NP-hard [4]. π (x) = P(x | u ,...,u ) π (u ) Actually, the majority of Bayesian networks 1 p ∏ U j X i j u1 ,...,u p j=1 are not polytrees. It is proven that Pearl‘s Thus, we need to compute: algorithm, applied to Bayesian networks with loops, gives incorrect numerical results π (x) = απ (x) λ (x) XYJ X ∏ Yk X i.e. incorrect posterior probabilities. k ≠ j Pearl proposed an exact inference algorithm and for multiply connected networks called q —loop cutset conditioning“ [10]. This λY X (x) = λY (y j ) p(y | v1,...,vq ) πV Y (vk ) j j ∏ k j algorithm changes the connectivity of a y j v1 ,...,vq k =1 network and renders it singly connected. The resulting network is solved by Pearl‘s To summarize, Pearl‘s algorithm proceeds as algorithm. The complexity of this method follows: grows exponentially with the size of the loop A- Initialization step cutset for a multiple connected network. - For all nodes V =e in E: i i Unfortunately the loop cutset minimization λ(xi) = 1 wherever xi = ei ; 0 otherwise problem is NP-hard. π(xi) = 1 wherever xi = ei ; 0 otherwise Another exact inference algorithm called - For nodes without parents: —clique-tree propagation“ [14] transforms a π(xi) = p(xi) - prior probabilities multiple connected network into a clique - For nodes without children: tree, then it performs message propagation λ(xi) = 1 uniformly (normalize at end) method over the transformed network. The clique-tree propagation algorithm can be extremely slow for dense networks since its 3 complexity is exponential with the size of the largest clique of the transformed network. The approximate inference algorithm remains the best alternative of any exact inference algorithm when it is difficult or impossible to apply an exact inference method. 4. Loopy belief propagation The —Loopy belief propagation“ (LBP) is an approximate inference algorithm which applies the rules of belief propagation over networks with loops [7]. The main idea of LBP is to keep passing messages around the Figure 3: Incoming messages network until a stable belief state is reached to node X at step t (if ever). The LBP algorithm may not give with : exact results on a network with loops, but it (1) can be used in the following way: iterate message propagation until convergence. Empirically, several applications of the LBP and : algorithm proved successful, among them the decoding Turbo code: the error correction codes network [1]. (2) W e define here some notations used in the Similarly, we draw the outgoing messages algorithm: exchanged at step t+1 from a node X to its parents and children (see Figure 4): λY(X) is defined as the message to X from a child node Y.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inference Algorithm for Finite-Dimensional Spin
    PHYSICAL REVIEW E 84, 046706 (2011) Inference algorithm for finite-dimensional spin glasses: Belief propagation on the dual lattice Alejandro Lage-Castellanos and Roberto Mulet Department of Theoretical Physics and Henri-Poincare´ Group of Complex Systems, Physics Faculty, University of Havana, La Habana, Codigo Postal 10400, Cuba Federico Ricci-Tersenghi Dipartimento di Fisica, INFN–Sezione di Roma 1, and CNR–IPCF, UOS di Roma, Universita` La Sapienza, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, I-00185 Roma, Italy Tommaso Rizzo Dipartimento di Fisica and CNR–IPCF, UOS di Roma, Universita` La Sapienza, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, I-00185 Roma, Italy (Received 18 February 2011; revised manuscript received 15 September 2011; published 24 October 2011) Starting from a cluster variational method, and inspired by the correctness of the paramagnetic ansatz [at high temperatures in general, and at any temperature in the two-dimensional (2D) Edwards-Anderson (EA) model] we propose a message-passing algorithm—the dual algorithm—to estimate the marginal probabilities of spin glasses on finite-dimensional lattices. We use the EA models in 2D and 3D as benchmarks. The dual algorithm improves the Bethe approximation, and we show that in a wide range of temperatures (compared to the Bethe critical temperature) our algorithm compares very well with Monte Carlo simulations, with the double-loop algorithm, and with exact calculation of the ground state of 2D systems with bimodal and Gaussian interactions. Moreover, it is usually 100 times faster than other provably convergent methods, as the double-loop algorithm. In 2D and 3D the quality of the inference deteriorates only where the correlation length becomes very large, i.e., at low temperatures in 2D and close to the critical temperature in 3D.
    [Show full text]
  • Many-Pairs Mutual Information for Adding Structure to Belief Propagation Approximations
    Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2008) Many-Pairs Mutual Information for Adding Structure to Belief Propagation Approximations Arthur Choi and Adnan Darwiche Computer Science Department University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90095 {aychoi,darwiche}@cs.ucla.edu Abstract instances of the satisfiability problem (Braunstein, Mezard,´ and Zecchina 2005). IBP has also been applied towards a We consider the problem of computing mutual informa- variety of computer vision tasks (Szeliski et al. 2006), par- tion between many pairs of variables in a Bayesian net- work. This task is relevant to a new class of Generalized ticularly stereo vision, where methods based on belief prop- Belief Propagation (GBP) algorithms that characterizes agation have been particularly successful. Iterative Belief Propagation (IBP) as a polytree approx- The successes of IBP as an approximate inference algo- imation found by deleting edges in a Bayesian network. rithm spawned a number of generalizations, in the hopes of By computing, in the simplified network, the mutual in- understanding the nature of IBP, and further to improve on formation between variables across a deleted edge, we the quality of its approximations. Among the most notable can estimate the impact that recovering the edge might are the family of Generalized Belief Propagation (GBP) al- have on the approximation. Unfortunately, it is compu- gorithms (Yedidia, Freeman, and Weiss 2005), where the tationally impractical to compute such scores for net- works over many variables having large state spaces. “structure” of an approximation is given by an auxiliary So that edge recovery can scale to such networks, we graph called a region graph, which specifies (roughly) which propose in this paper an approximation of mutual in- regions of the original network should be handled exactly, formation which is based on a soft extension of d- and to what extent different regions should be mutually con- separation (a graphical test of independence in Bayesian sistent.
    [Show full text]
  • Variational Message Passing
    Journal of Machine Learning Research 6 (2005) 661–694 Submitted 2/04; Revised 11/04; Published 4/05 Variational Message Passing John Winn [email protected] Christopher M. Bishop [email protected] Microsoft Research Cambridge Roger Needham Building 7 J. J. Thomson Avenue Cambridge CB3 0FB, U.K. Editor: Tommi Jaakkola Abstract Bayesian inference is now widely established as one of the principal foundations for machine learn- ing. In practice, exact inference is rarely possible, and so a variety of approximation techniques have been developed, one of the most widely used being a deterministic framework called varia- tional inference. In this paper we introduce Variational Message Passing (VMP), a general purpose algorithm for applying variational inference to Bayesian Networks. Like belief propagation, VMP proceeds by sending messages between nodes in the network and updating posterior beliefs us- ing local operations at each node. Each such update increases a lower bound on the log evidence (unless already at a local maximum). In contrast to belief propagation, VMP can be applied to a very general class of conjugate-exponential models because it uses a factorised variational approx- imation. Furthermore, by introducing additional variational parameters, VMP can be applied to models containing non-conjugate distributions. The VMP framework also allows the lower bound to be evaluated, and this can be used both for model comparison and for detection of convergence. Variational message passing has been implemented in the form of a general purpose inference en- gine called VIBES (‘Variational Inference for BayEsian networkS’) which allows models to be specified graphically and then solved variationally without recourse to coding.
    [Show full text]
  • Linearized and Single-Pass Belief Propagation
    Linearized and Single-Pass Belief Propagation Wolfgang Gatterbauer Stephan Gunnemann¨ Danai Koutra Christos Faloutsos Carnegie Mellon University Carnegie Mellon University Carnegie Mellon University Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT DR TS HAF D 0.8 0.2 T 0.3 0.7 H 0.6 0.3 0.1 How can we tell when accounts are fake or real in a social R 0.2 0.8 S 0.7 0.3 A 0.3 0.0 0.7 network? And how can we tell which accounts belong to F 0.1 0.7 0.2 liberal, conservative or centrist users? Often, we can answer (a) homophily (b) heterophily (c) general case such questions and label nodes in a network based on the labels of their neighbors and appropriate assumptions of ho- Figure 1: Three types of network effects with example coupling mophily (\birds of a feather flock together") or heterophily matrices. Shading intensity corresponds to the affinities or cou- (\opposites attract"). One of the most widely used methods pling strengths between classes of neighboring nodes. (a): D: for this kind of inference is Belief Propagation (BP) which Democrats, R: Republicans. (b): T: Talkative, S: Silent. (c): H: iteratively propagates the information from a few nodes with Honest, A: Accomplice, F: Fraudster. explicit labels throughout a network until convergence. A well-known problem with BP, however, is that there are no or heterophily applies in a given scenario, we can usually give known exact guarantees of convergence in graphs with loops.
    [Show full text]
  • Α Belief Propagation for Approximate Inference
    α Belief Propagation for Approximate Inference Dong Liu, Minh Thanh` Vu, Zuxing Li, and Lars K. Rasmussen KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. e-mail: fdoli, mtvu, zuxing, [email protected] Abstract Belief propagation (BP) algorithm is a widely used message-passing method for inference in graphical models. BP on loop-free graphs converges in linear time. But for graphs with loops, BP’s performance is uncertain, and the understanding of its solution is limited. To gain a better understanding of BP in general graphs, we derive an interpretable belief propagation algorithm that is motivated by minimization of a localized α-divergence. We term this algorithm as α belief propagation (α-BP). It turns out that α-BP generalizes standard BP. In addition, this work studies the convergence properties of α-BP. We prove and offer the convergence conditions for α-BP. Experimental simulations on random graphs validate our theoretical results. The application of α-BP to practical problems is also demonstrated. I. INTRODUCTION Bayesian inference provides a general mathematical framework for many learning tasks such as classification, denoising, object detection, and signal detection. The wide applications include but not limited to imaging processing [34], multi-input-multi-output (MIMO) signal detection in digital communication [2], [10], inference on structured lattice [5], machine learning [19], [14], [33]. Generally speaking, a core problem to these applications is the inference on statistical properties of a (hidden) variable x = (x1; : : : ; xN ) that usually can not be observed. Specifically, practical interests usually include computing the most probable state x given joint probability p(x), or marginal probability p(xc), where xc is subset of x.
    [Show full text]
  • Markov Random Field Modeling, Inference & Learning in Computer Vision & Image Understanding: a Survey Chaohui Wang, Nikos Komodakis, Nikos Paragios
    Markov Random Field Modeling, Inference & Learning in Computer Vision & Image Understanding: A Survey Chaohui Wang, Nikos Komodakis, Nikos Paragios To cite this version: Chaohui Wang, Nikos Komodakis, Nikos Paragios. Markov Random Field Modeling, Inference & Learning in Computer Vision & Image Understanding: A Survey. Computer Vision and Image Under- standing, Elsevier, 2013, 117 (11), pp.Page 1610-1627. 10.1016/j.cviu.2013.07.004. hal-00858390v1 HAL Id: hal-00858390 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00858390v1 Submitted on 5 Sep 2013 (v1), last revised 6 Sep 2013 (v2) HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Markov Random Field Modeling, Inference & Learning in Computer Vision & Image Understanding: A Survey Chaohui Wanga,b, Nikos Komodakisc, Nikos Paragiosa,d aCenter for Visual Computing, Ecole Centrale Paris, Grande Voie des Vignes, Chˆatenay-Malabry, France bPerceiving Systems Department, Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, T¨ubingen, Germany cLIGM laboratory, University Paris-East & Ecole des Ponts Paris-Tech, Marne-la-Vall´ee, France dGALEN Group, INRIA Saclay - Ileˆ de France, Orsay, France Abstract In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of Markov Random Fields (MRFs) in computer vision and image understanding, with respect to the modeling, the inference and the learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Belief Propagation for the (Physicist) Layman
    Belief Propagation for the (physicist) layman Florent Krzakala ESPCI Paristech Laboratoire PCT, UMR Gulliver CNRS-ESPCI 7083, 10 rue Vauquelin, 75231 Paris, France [email protected] http: // www. pct. espci. fr/ ∼florent/ (Dated: January 30, 2011) These lecture notes have been prepared for a series of course in a master in Lyon (France), and other teaching in Beijing (China) and Tokyo (Japan). It consists in a short introduction to message passing algorithms and in particular Belief propagation, using a statistical physics formulation. It is intended as a first introduction to such ideas which start to be now widely used in both physics, constraint optimization, Bayesian inference and quantitative biology. The reader interested to pursur her journey beyond these notes is refer to [1]. I. WHY STATISTICAL PHYSICS ? Why should we speak about statistical physics in this lecture about complex systems? A. Physics First of all, because of physics itself. Statistical physics is a fondamental tool and one of the most formidable success of modern physics. Here, we shall however use it only as a probabilist toolbox for other problems. It is perhaps better to do a recap before we start. In statistical physics, we consider N discrete (not always, actually, but for the matter let us assume discrete) variables σi and a cost function H({σ}) which we call the Hamiltonian. We introduce the temperature T (and the inverse temperature β = 1/T and the idea is that each configurations, or assignments, of the variable ({σ}) has a weight e−βH({σ}), which is called the
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Belief Propagation for Higher Order Cliques Using Linear
    * 2. Manuscript Efficient Belief Propagation for Higher Order Cliques Using Linear Constraint Nodes Brian Potetz ∗, Tai Sing Lee Department of Computer Science & Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Abstract Belief propagation over pairwise connected Markov Random Fields has become a widely used approach, and has been successfully applied to several important computer vision problems. However, pairwise interactions are often insufficient to capture the full statistics of the problem. Higher-order interactions are sometimes required. Unfortunately, the complexity of belief propagation is exponential in the size of the largest clique. In this paper, we introduce a new technique to compute belief propagation messages in time linear with respect to clique size for a large class of potential functions over real-valued variables. We discuss how this technique can be generalized to still wider classes of potential functions at varying levels of efficiency. Also, we develop a form of nonparametric belief representation specifically designed to address issues common to networks with higher-order cliques and also to the use of guaranteed-convergent forms of belief propagation. To illustrate these techniques, we perform efficient inference in graphical models where the spatial prior of natural images is captured by 2 2 cliques. This approach × shows significant improvement over the commonly used pairwise-connected models, and may benefit a variety of applications using belief propagation to infer images or range images, including stereo, shape-from-shading, image-based rendering, seg- mentation, and matting. Key words: Belief propagation, Higher order cliques, Non-pairwise cliques, Factor graphs, Continuous Markov Random Fields PACS: ∗ Corresponding author.
    [Show full text]
  • 13 : Variational Inference: Loopy Belief Propagation and Mean Field
    10-708: Probabilistic Graphical Models 10-708, Spring 2012 13 : Variational Inference: Loopy Belief Propagation and Mean Field Lecturer: Eric P. Xing Scribes: Peter Schulam and William Wang 1 Introduction Inference problems involve answering a query that concerns the likelihood of observed data. For example, to P answer the query on a marginal p(xA), we can perform the marginalization operation to derive C=A p(x). Or, for queries concern the conditionals, such as p(xAjxB), we can first compute the joint, and divide by the marginals p(xB). Sometimes to answer a query, we might also need to compute the mode of density x^ = arg maxx2X m p(x). So far, in the class, we have covered the exact inference problem. To perform exact inference, we know that brute force search might be too inefficient for large graphs with complex structures, so a family of message passing algorithm such as forward-backward, sum-product, max-product, and junction tree, was introduced. However, although we know that these message-passing based exact inference algorithms work well for tree- structured graphical models, it was also shown in the class that they might not yield consistent results for loopy graphs, or, the convergence might not be guaranteed. Also, for complex graphical models such as the Ising model, we cannot run exact inference algorithm such as the junction tree algorithm, because it is computationally intractable. In this lecture, we look at two variational inference algorithms: loopy belief propagation (yww) and mean field approximation (pschulam). 2 Loopy Belief Propagation The general idea for loopy belief propagation is that even though we know graph contains loops and the messages might circulate indefinitely, we still let it run anyway and hope for the best.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Belief Propagation and Its Generalizations
    MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC RESEARCH LABORATORIES http://www.merl.com Characterization of belief propagation and its generalizations Jonathan S. Yedidia, William T. Freeman, Yair Weiss TR2001-15 March 2001 Abstract Graphical models are used in many scientific disciplines, including statistical physics, machine learning, and error-correcting coding. One typically seeks the marginal probability of selected variables (nodes of the graph) given observations at other variables. Belief propagation (BP) is a fast marginalization method, based on passing local messages. Designed for singly-connected graphs, BP nonetheless works well in many applications involving graphs with loops, for rea- sons that were not well understood. We characterize the BP solutions, showing that BP can only converge to a stationary point of an approximate free energy, known as the Bethe free energy in statistical physics. This understanding lets us for construct new message-passing algorithms based on improvements to Bethe’s approximation introduced by Kikuchi and others. The new generalized belief propagation (GBP) algorithms are much more accurate than ordinary BP for some problems, and permit solutions to Kikuchi approximations for otherwise intractable inho- mogeneous systems. We illustrate GBP with a spin-glass example and an error-correcting code, showing dramatically improved estimates of local magnetizations and decoding performance using GBP. This work may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any commercial purpose. Permission to copy in whole or in part without payment of fee is granted for nonprofit educational and research purposes provided that all such whole or partial copies include the following: a notice that such copying is by permission of Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc.; an acknowledgment of the authors and individual contributions to the work; and all applicable portions of the copyright notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Particle Belief Propagation
    Particle Belief Propagation Alexander Ihler David McAllester [email protected] [email protected] Dept. of Computer Science Toyota Technological Institite, Chicago University of California, Irvine Abstract passing” algorithms such as belief propagation (Pearl, 1988). Traditionally, most such work has focused on systems of many variables, each of which has a rela- The popularity of particle filtering for infer- tively small state space (number of possible values), ence in Markov chain models defined over or particularly nice parametric forms (such as jointly random variables with very large or contin- Gaussian distributions). For systems with continuous- uous domains makes it natural to consider valued variables, or discrete-valued variables with very sample–based versions of belief propagation large domains, one possibility is to reduce the effec- (BP) for more general (tree–structured or tive state space through gating, or discarding low- loopy) graphs. Already, several such al- probability states (Freeman et al., 2000; Coughlan and gorithms have been proposed in the litera- Ferreira, 2002), or through random sampling (Arulam- ture. However, many questions remain open palam et al., 2002; Koller et al., 1999; Sudderth et al., about the behavior of particle–based BP al- 2003; Isard, 2003; Neal et al., 2003). The best-known gorithms, and little theory has been devel- example of the latter technique is particle filtering, de- oped to analyze their performance. In this fined on Markov chains, in which each distribution is paper, we describe a generic particle belief represented using a finite collection of samples, or par- propagation (PBP) algorithm which is closely ticles. It is therefore only natural to consider general- related to previously proposed methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Belief Propagation Neural Networks
    Belief Propagation Neural Networks Jonathan Kuck1, Shuvam Chakraborty1, Hao Tang2, Rachel Luo1, Jiaming Song1, Ashish Sabharwal3, and Stefano Ermon1 1Stanford University 2Shanghai Jiao Tong University 3Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence {kuck,shuvamc,rsluo,tsong,ermon}@stanford.edu, [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Learned neural solvers have successfully been used to solve combinatorial opti- mization and decision problems. More general counting variants of these problems, however, are still largely solved with hand-crafted solvers. To bridge this gap, we introduce belief propagation neural networks (BPNNs), a class of parameterized operators that operate on factor graphs and generalize Belief Propagation (BP). In its strictest form, a BPNN layer (BPNN-D) is a learned iterative operator that provably maintains many of the desirable properties of BP for any choice of the parameters. Empirically, we show that by training BPNN-D learns to perform the task better than the original BP: it converges 1.7x faster on Ising models while pro- viding tighter bounds. On challenging model counting problems, BPNNs compute estimates 100’s of times faster than state-of-the-art handcrafted methods, while returning an estimate of comparable quality. 1 Introduction Probabilistic inference problems arise in many domains, from statistical physics to machine learning. There is little hope that efficient, exact solutions to these problems exist as they are at least as hard as NP-complete decision problems. Significant research has been devoted across the fields of machine learning, statistics, and statistical physics to develop variational and sampling based methods to approximate these challenging problems [13, 34, 48, 6, 38].
    [Show full text]