Re: [UAI] Definition of Bayesian network

From: Marco Valtorta (mgv@cse.sc.edu)
Date: Sat Jul 21 2001 - 11:14:56 PDT

  • Next message: Stuart Russell: "Re: [UAI] Definition of Bayesian network"

    Dear Rich:

    On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, profrich@megsinet.net wrote:

    > Dear Colleagues,
    >
    > In my 1990 book I defined a Bayesian network approximately as follows:
    >
    > Definition of Markov Condition: Suppose we have a joint probability
    > distribution P of the random variables in some set V and a DAG G=(V,E). We
    > say that (G,P) satisfies the Markov condition if for each variable X in V,
    > {X} is conditionally independent of the set of all its nondescendants given
    > the set of all its parents.
    >
    > Definition of Bayesian Network: Let P be a joint probability distribution
    > of the random variables in some set V, and G=(V,E) be a DAG. We call (G,P)
    > a Bayesian network if (G,P)satisfies the Markov condition.
    >
    > The fact that the joint is the product of the conditionals is then an iff
    > theorem.
    >
    Do not give up! You are right.
    When I teach Bayesian nets, I always use your definition, precisely for
    the reason you outline below!

    > I used the same definition in my current
    book. However, a reviewer
    > commented that this was nonstandard and unintuitive. The reviewer suggested
    > I define it as a DAG along with specified conditional distributions (which
    > I realize is more often done). My definition would then be an iff theorem.
    >
    > My reason for defining it the way I did is that I feel `causal' networks
    > exist in nature without anyone specifying conditional probability
    > distributions. We identify them by noting that the conditional
    > independencies exist, not by seeing if the joint is the product of the
    > conditionals. So to me the conditional independencies are the more basic
    > concept.
    >
    > However, a researcher, with whom I discussed this, noted that telling a
    > person what numbers you plan to store at each node is not provable from my
    > definition, yet it should be part of the definition as Bayes Nets are not
    > only statistical objects, they are computational objects.

    I do not understand this argument. WHat does he or she mean by "telling a
    person ... is not provable?"
    >
    > I am left undecided about which definition seems more appropriate. I would
    > appreciate comments from the general community.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    >
    > Rich Neapolitan
    >
    >

    Cheers,

                                            Marco

    Marco Valtorta Associate Professor
    Department of Computer Science and Engineering
    University of South Carolina
    Columbia, SC 29208, U.S.A. http://www.cse.sc.edu/~mgv/
    803.777-4641 fax:-3767 mgv@cse.sc.edu
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Probability is not about numbers. It is about the structure of reasoning."
                                    --Glenn Shafer
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 21 2001 - 11:19:16 PDT