Value Elimination: Bayesian Interence via Backtracking Search

We present Value Elimination, a new algorithm for Bayesian Inference. Given the same variable ordering information, Value Elimination can achieve performance that is within a constant factor of variable elimination or recursive conditioning, and on some problems it can perform exponentially better, irrespective of the variable ordering used by these algorithms. Value Elimination's other features include: (1) it can achieve the same space-time tradeoff guarantees as recursive conditioning; (2) it can utilize all of the logical reasoning techniques used in state of the art SAT solvers; these techniques allow it to obtain considerable extra mileage out of zero entries in the CPTs; (3) it can be naturally and easily extended to take advantage of context specific structure; and (4) it supports dynamic variable orderings which might be particularly advantageous in the presence of context specific structure. We have implemented a version of Value Elimination that demonstrates very promising performance, often being one or two orders of magnitude faster than a commercial Bayes inference engine, despite the fact that it does not as yet take advantage of context specific structure.

[1]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  Inference in belief networks: A procedural guide , 1996, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[2]  Roberto J. Bayardo,et al.  Counting Models Using Connected Components , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[3]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Algorithms and complexity results for #SAT and Bayesian inference , 2003, 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings..

[4]  Fahiem Bacchus,et al.  On the Forward Checking Algorithm , 1995, CP.

[5]  Nevin L. Zhang,et al.  A simple approach to Bayesian network computations , 1994 .

[6]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Bucket Elimination: A Unifying Framework for Reasoning , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Donald W. Loveland,et al.  A machine program for theorem-proving , 2011, CACM.

[8]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Enhancement Schemes for Constraint Processing: Backjumping, Learning, and Cutset Decomposition , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Stochastic Constraint Programming , 2002, ECAI.

[10]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Resolution versus Search: Two Strategies for SAT , 2000, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[11]  David Allen,et al.  Optimal Time-Space Tradeoff in Probabilistic Inference , 2003, Probabilistic Graphical Models.

[12]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver , 2001, Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37232).

[13]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Context-Specific Independence in Bayesian Networks , 1996, UAI.

[14]  Hilary Putnam,et al.  A Computing Procedure for Quantification Theory , 1960, JACM.

[15]  David Poole,et al.  Probabilistic Conflicts in a Search Algorithm for Estimating Posterior Probabilities in Bayesian Networks , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Maria Luisa Bonet,et al.  Exponential separations between restricted resolution and cutting planes proof systems , 1998, Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280).

[17]  Paul D. Seymour,et al.  Graph minors. X. Obstructions to tree-decomposition , 1991, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B.

[18]  Ross D. Shachter Evaluating Influence Diagrams , 1986, Oper. Res..

[19]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  MAXPLAN: A New Approach to Probabilistic Planning , 1998, AIPS.

[20]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  Recursive conditioning , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Directional Resolution: The Davis-Putnam Procedure, Revisited , 1994, KR.

[22]  Philippe Chatalic,et al.  SatEx: A Web-based Framework for SAT Experimentation , 2001, Electron. Notes Discret. Math..