Probability
AI, Decision Making, and Probability
About decision-making
Uncertainty, likelihood, and probability
Decision-theoretic methods
Probability
Idea: chance and likelihood are important concepts for real reasoning
Method: assign probabilities to events and combinations of events
Reason from model using calculation
This is a general plan:
Evidence -----------------> Conclusions | ^ | | v | Model -----------------> Extrapolation
Probability of Events
Domain: events
pr(E) is probability that event E happens
pr(E) = #E / (#E + #¬E)
For a coin pr(H) = #H / (#H + #T) = 1 / 2
For a pair of dice:
pr(R7) = #R7 / #R
#R7 = #{(1, 6), (2, 5), (3, 4), …} = 6
#R = #{D×D} = 36
pr(R7) = 6 / 36 = 1/6
Check with computer program [prob7](http://github.com/pdx-cs-ai/prob7]
Probability of Logical Situations
Domain: propositional formula
pr(p) is probability of logical combination of events
p is a prop formula
Priors and conditionals
- pr(p|q) is prob of p given q (easy to get backward)
Axioms Of Probability
equivalence: if p ≡ q then pr(p) = pr(q)
range: 0 ≤ pr(p) ≤ 1
negation: pr(¬p) = 1 - pr(p)
conjunction: pr(p ∧ q) = pr(p) pr(q|p) = pr(q) pr(p|q)
Derived Probability Rules
disjunction: pr(p ∨ q) = pr(¬(¬p ∧ ¬q)) = 1 - pr(¬p ∧ ¬q)
Bayes's Rule:
pr(q) pr(p|q) = pr(p ∧ q) = pr(p) pr(q|p) pr(q) pr(p|q) = pr(q|p) pr(p) pr(p|q) = pr(q|p) pr(p) / pr(q)
Independence
When p and q are conditionally independent pr(p|q) = pr(p)
By Bayes's Rule
pr(q|p) = pr(p|q) pr(q) / pr(p) = pr(p) pr(q) / pr(p) = pr(q)
In this case, conjunction gets easier
- pr(p ∧ q) = pr(p|q) pr(q) = pr(p) pr(q)
When p and q are strictly independent pr(p ∧ q) = 0
In this case, disjunction gets easier
pr(p ∨ q) = 1 - pr(¬p ∧ ¬q) = 1 - pr(¬p) pr(¬q) = 1 - (1 - pr(p))(1 - pr(q)) = 1 - (1 - pr(p) - pr(q) - pr(p) pr(q)) = pr(p) + pr(q) + pr(p) pr(q) = pr(p) + pr(q)
Bayes's Rule
Given
evidence E with prior probability pr(E)
hypothesis H with pp pr(H)
probability pr(E|H) of the evidence given that the hypothesis holds
We want
- probability pr(H|E) that the hypothesis holds given the evidence
By Bayes's Rule
- pr(H|E) = pr(E|H) pr(H) / pr(E)
The Medical Example
H = "You have Glaubner's Disease"
E = "Reaper's Test is positive"Rare disease: pr(H) = 1e-6
Low false positive rate: pr(E|¬H) = 1e-4
Perfect false negative rate: pr(E|H) = 1
pr(H|E) = pr(H) pr(E|H) / pr(E) = pr(H) / pr(E∧H ∨ E∧¬H) = pr(H) / (pr(E|¬H) pr(¬H) + pr(E|H) pr(H)) = 1e-6 / (1e-4 × (1-1e-6) + 1e-6) ~= 1e-6 / 1e-4 = 1e-2 = 0.01
IRL the false negative rate will be nonzero too, so you will not learn a ton from the test either way
Been there
Bayesian Belief Networks
Bayes Net (BBN, influence diagram) : indicate which priors and conditionals have significant influence in practice
Cloudy / \ Sprinkler Rain \ / Wet Grass
Usually reason one of two ways:
causal/top-down:
p(W|C) = p(W|S∨R) = 1 - p(W|¬S) p(¬S|C) p(C) × p(W|¬R) p(¬R|C) p(C)
diagnostic/bottom-up: p(C|W)
Polytrees: special case for easy computation
Problem: everything depends on everything else
Need to know impossible number of prior and conditional probabilities to conclude anything
Maybe learn probabilities?
Is Your Probabilistic Model Meaningful?
Difference between 0.5 and "don't know" and "don't care"
MYCIN and probabilities vs "likelihoods"
Consequence of Cox's Theorem: under reasonable assumptions, any labeling of logical sentences with real numbers will be consistent with probability
Measurement issues; numeric issues