SKEDSOFT

Learning Bayes net structures: So far, we have assumed that the structure of the Bayes net is given and we are just trying to learn the parameters. The structure of the network represents basic causal knowledge about the domain that is often easy for an expert, or even a naive user, to supply. In some cases, however, the causal model may be unavailable or subject to dispute—for example, certain corporations have long claimed that smoking does not cause cancer—so it is important to

Figure 20.6 A Bayesian network that corresponds to a Bayesian learning process. Posterior distributions for the parameter variables Θ, Θ1, and Θ2 can be inferred from their prior distributions and the evidence in the Flavor i and Wrapper i variables.

understand how the structure of a Bayes net can be learned from data. At present, structural learning algorithms are in their infancy, so we will give only a brief sketch of the main ideas.

The most obvious approach is to search for a good model. We can start with a model containing no links and begin adding parents for each node, fitting the parameters with the methods we have just covered and measuring the accuracy of the resulting model. Alternatively, we can start with an initial guess at the structure and use hill-climbing or simulated annealing search to make modifications, retuning the parameters after each change in the structure. Modifications can include reversing, adding, or deleting arcs. We must not introduce cycles in the process, so many algorithms assume that an ordering is given for the variables, and that a node can have parents only among those nodes that come earlier in the ordering (just as in the construction process Chapter 14). For full generality, we also need to search over possible orderings.
There are two alternative methods for deciding when a good structure has been found. The first is to test whether the conditional independence assertions implicit in the structure are actually satisfied in the data. For example, the use of a naive Bayes model for the restaurant problem assumes that

and we can check in the data that the same equation holds between the corresponding conditional frequencies. Now, even if the structure describes the true causal nature of the domain, statistical fluctuations in the data set mean that the equation will never be satisfied exactly, so we need to perform a suitable statistical test to see if there is sufficient evidence that the independence hypothesis is violated. The complexity of the resulting network will depend on the threshold used for this test—the stricter the independence test, the more links will be added and the greater the danger of overfitting.

An approach more consistent with the ideas in this chapter is to the degree to which the proposed model explains the data (in a probabilistic sense). We must be careful how we measure this, however. If we just try to find the maximum-likelihood hypothesis, we will end up with a fully connected network, because adding more parents to a node cannot decrease the likelihood (Exercise 20.9). We are forced to penalize model complexity in some way. The MAP (or MDL) approach simply subtracts a penalty from the likelihood of each structure (after parameter tuning) before comparing different structures. The Bayesian approach places a joint prior over structures and parameters. There are usually far too many structures to sum over (superexponential in the number of variables), so most practitioners use MCMC to sample over structures.

Penalizing complexity (whether by MAP or Bayesian methods) introduces an important connection between the optimal structure and the nature of the representation for the conditional distributions in the network. With tabular distributions, the complexity penalty for a node’s distribution grows exponentially with the number of parents, but with, say, noisy-OR distributions, it grows only linearly. This means that learning with noisy-OR (or other compactly parameterized) models tends to produce learned structures with more parents than does learning with tabular distributions.