Abstract not found

A companion set of lecture slides is available at

Recent work in supervised learning has shown that a surprisingly simple Bayesian classifier with strong assumptions of independence among features, called naive Bayes, is competitive with state-of-the-art classifiers such as C4.5. This fact raises the question of whether a classifier with less restrictive assumptions can perform even better. In this paper we evaluate approaches for inducing classifiers from data, based on the theory of learning Bayesian networks. These networks are factored representations of probability distributions that generalize the naive Bayesian classifier and explicitly represent statements about independence. Among these approaches we single out a method we call Tree Augmented Naive Bayes (TAN), which outperforms naive Bayes, yet at the same time maintains the computational simplicity (no search involved) and robustness that characterize naive Bayes. We experimentally tested these approaches, using problems from the University of California at Irvine repository, and compared them to C4.5, naive Bayes, and wrapper methods for feature selection.

Modelling sequential data is important in many areas of science and engineering. Hidden Markov models (HMMs) and Kalman filter models (KFMs) are popular for this because they are simple and flexible. For example, HMMs have been used for speech recognition and bio-sequence analysis, and KFMs have been used for problems ranging from tracking planes and missiles to predicting the economy. However, HMMs and KFMs are limited in their “expressive power”. Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBNs) generalize HMMs by allowing the state space to be represented in factored form, instead of as a single discrete random variable. DBNs generalize KFMs by allowing arbitrary probability distributions, not just (unimodal) linear-Gaussian. In this thesis, I will discuss how to represent many different kinds of models as DBNs, how to perform exact and approximate inference in DBNs, and how to learn DBN models from sequential data. In particular, the main novel technical contributions of this thesis are as follows: a way of representing Hierarchical HMMs as DBNs, which enables inference to be done in O(T) time instead of O(T 3), where T is the length of the sequence; an exact smoothing algorithm that takes O(log T) space instead of O(T); a simple way of using the junction tree algorithm for online inference in DBNs; new complexity bounds on exact online inference in DBNs; a new deterministic approximate inference algorithm called factored frontier; an analysis of the relationship between the BK algorithm and loopy belief propagation; a way of applying Rao-Blackwellised particle filtering to DBNs in general, and the SLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping) problem in particular; a way of extending the structural EM algorithm to DBNs; and a variety of different applications of DBNs. However, perhaps the main value of the thesis is its catholic presentation of the field of sequential data modelling.

Abstract not found

In recent years there has been a flurry of works on learning Bayesian networks from data. One of the hard problems in this area is how to effectively learn the structure of a belief network from incomplete data---that is, in the presence of missing values or hidden variables. In a recent paper, I introduced an algorithm called Structural EM that combines the standard Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm, which optimizes parameters, with structure search for model selection. That algorithm learns networks based on penalized likelihood scores, which include the BIC/MDL score and various approximations to the Bayesian score. In this paper, I extend Structural EM to deal directly with Bayesian model selection. I prove the convergence of the resulting algorithm and show how to apply it for learning a large class of probabilistic models, including Bayesian networks and some variants thereof.

Though research on the Semantic Web has progressed at a steady pace, its promise has yet to be realized. One major difficulty is that, by its very nature, the Semantic Web is a large, uncensored system to which anyone may contribute. This raises

In recent years there has been a flurry of works on learning probabilistic belief networks. Current state of the art methods have been shown to be successful for two learning scenarios: learning both network structure and parameters from complete data, and learning parameters for a fixed network from incomplete data---that is, in the presence of missing values or hidden variables. However, no method has yet been demonstrated to effectively learn network structure from incomplete data. In this paper, we propose a new method for learning network structure from incomplete data. This method is based on an extension of the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm for model selection problems that performs search for the best structure inside the EM procedure. We prove the convergence of this algorithm, and adapt it for learning belief networks. We then describe how to learn networks in two scenarios: when the data contains missing values, and in the presence of hidden variables. We provide...

Abstract not found

We examine methods for clustering in high dimensions. In the first part of the paper, we perform an experimental comparison between three batch clustering algorithms: the Expectation–Maximization (EM) algorithm, a “winner take all ” version of the EM algorithm reminiscent of the K-means algorithm, and model-based hierarchical agglomerative clustering. We learn naive-Bayes models with a hidden root node, using high-dimensional discrete-variable data sets (both real and synthetic). We find that the EM algorithm significantly outperforms the other methods, and proceed to investigate the effect of various initialization schemes on the final solution produced by the EM algorithm. The initializations that we consider are (1) parameters sampled from an uninformative prior, (2) random perturbations of the marginal distribution of the data, and (3) the output of hierarchical agglomerative clustering. Although the methods are substantially different, they lead to learned models that are strikingly similar in quality. 1