# Variables-based models with CSP and Bayesian networks

*By Afshine Amidi and Shervine Amidi*

## Constraint satisfaction problems

In this section, our objective is to find maximum weight assignments of variable-based models. One advantage compared to states-based models is that these algorithms are more convenient to encode problem-specific constraints.

### Factor graphs

Definition A factor graph, also referred to as a Markov random field, is a set of variables $X=(X_1,...,X_n)$ where $X_i\in\textrm{Domain}_i$ and $m$ factors $f_1,...,f_m$ with each $f_j(X)\geqslant 0$.

Scope and arity The scope of a factor $f_j$ is the set of variables it depends on. The size of this set is called the arity.

Remark: factors of arity 1 and 2 are called unary and binary respectively.

Assignment weight Each assignment $x=(x_1,...,x_n)$ yields a weight $\textrm{Weight}(x)$ defined as being the product of all factors $f_j$ applied to that assignment. Its expression is given by:

Constraint satisfaction problem A constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) is a factor graph where all factors are binary; we call them to be constraints:

Consistent assignment An assignment $x$ of a CSP is said to be consistent if and only if $\textrm{Weight}(x)=1$, i.e. all constraints are satisfied.

### Dynamic ordering

Dependent factors The set of dependent factors of variable $X_i$ with partial assignment $x$ is called $D(x,X_i)$, and denotes the set of factors that link $X_i$ to already assigned variables.

Backtracking search Backtracking search is an algorithm used to find maximum weight assignments of a factor graph. At each step, it chooses an unassigned variable and explores its values by recursion. Dynamic ordering (*i.e.* choice of variables and values) and lookahead (*i.e.* early elimination of inconsistent options) can be used to explore the graph more efficiently, although the worst-case runtime stays exponential: $O(|\text{Domain}|^n)$.

Forward checking It is a one-step lookahead heuristic that preemptively removes inconsistent values from the domains of neighboring variables. It has the following characteristics:

- After assigning a variable $X_i$, it eliminates inconsistent values from the domains of all its neighbors.
- If any of these domains becomes empty, we stop the local backtracking search.
- If we un-assign a variable $X_i$, we have to restore the domain of its neighbors.

Most constrained variable It is a variable-level ordering heuristic that selects the next unassigned variable that has the fewest consistent values. This has the effect of making inconsistent assignments to fail earlier in the search, which enables more efficient pruning.

Least constrained value It is a value-level ordering heuristic that assigns the next value that yields the highest number of consistent values of neighboring variables. Intuitively, this procedure chooses first the values that are most likely to work.

Remark: in practice, this heuristic is useful when all factors are constraints.

*The example above is an illustration of the 3-color problem with backtracking search coupled with most constrained variable exploration and least constrained value heuristic, as well as forward checking at each step.*

Arc consistency We say that arc consistency of variable $X_l$ with respect to $X_k$ is enforced when for each $x_l \in \textrm{Domain}_l$:

- unary factors of $X_l$ are non-zero,
- there exists at least one $x_k \in \textrm{Domain}_k$ such that any factor between $X_l$ and $X_k$ is non-zero.

AC-3 The AC-3 algorithm is a multi-step lookahead heuristic that applies forward checking to all relevant variables. After a given assignment, it performs forward checking and then successively enforces arc consistency with respect to the neighbors of variables for which the domain change during the process.

Remark: AC-3 can be implemented both iteratively and recursively.

### Approximate methods

Beam search Beam search is an approximate algorithm that extends partial assignments of $n$ variables of branching factor $b=|\textrm{Domain}|$ by exploring the $K$ top paths at each step. The beam size $K \in \{1,...,b^n\}$ controls the tradeoff between efficiency and accuracy. This algorithm has a time complexity of $O(n \cdot Kb\log(Kb))$.

*The example below illustrates a possible beam search of parameters $K = 2$, $b = 3$ and $n = 5$.*

Remark: $K=1$ corresponds to greedy search whereas $K\rightarrow+\infty$ is equivalent to BFS tree search.

Iterated conditional modes Iterated conditional modes (ICM) is an iterative approximate algorithm that modifies the assignment of a factor graph one variable at a time until convergence. At step $i$, we assign to $X_i$ the value $v$ that maximizes the product of all factors connected to that variable.

Remark: ICM may get stuck in local minima.

Gibbs sampling Gibbs sampling is an iterative approximate method that modifies the assignment of a factor graph one variable at a time until convergence. At step $i$:

- we assign to each element $u \in \textrm{Domain}_i$ a weight $w(u)$ that is the product of all factors connected to that variable,
- we sample $v$ from the probability distribution induced by $w$ and assign it to $X_i$.

Remark: Gibbs sampling can be seen as the probabilistic counterpart of ICM. It has the advantage to be able to escape local minima in most cases.

### Factor graph transformations

Independence Let $A,B$ be a partitioning of the variables $X$. We say that $A$ and $B$ are independent if there are no edges between $A$ and $B$ and we write:

Remark: independence is the key property that allows us to solve subproblems in parallel.

Conditional independence We say that $A$ and $B$ are conditionally independent given $C$ if conditioning on $C$ produces a graph in which $A$ and $B$ are independent. In this case, it is written:

Conditioning Conditioning is a transformation aiming at making variables independent that breaks up a factor graph into smaller pieces that can be solved in parallel and can use backtracking. In order to condition on a variable $X_i=v$, we do as follows:

- Consider all factors $f_1,...,f_k$ that depend on $X_i$
- Remove $X_i$ and $f_1,...,f_k$
- Add $g_j(x)$ for $j \in \{1,...,k\}$ defined as:
\[\boxed{g_j(x)=f_j(x\cup \{X_i:v\})}\]

Markov blanket Let $A\subseteq X$ be a subset of variables. We define $\textrm{MarkovBlanket}(A)$ to be the neighbors of $A$ that are not in $A$.

Proposition Let $C=\textrm{MarkovBlanket}(A)$ and $B=X\backslash(A\cup C)$. Then we have:

Elimination Elimination is a factor graph transformation that removes $X_i$ from the graph and solves a small subproblem conditioned on its Markov blanket as follows:

- Consider all factors $f_{i,1},...,f_{i,k}$ that depend on $X_i$
- Remove $X_i$ and $f_{i,1},...,f_{i,k}$
- Add $f_{\textrm{new},i}(x)$ defined as:
\[\boxed{f_{\textrm{new},i}(x)=\max_{x_i}\prod_{l=1}^kf_{i,l}(x)}\]

Treewidth The treewidth of a factor graph is the maximum arity of any factor created by variable elimination with the best variable ordering. In other words,

The example below illustrates the case of a factor graph of treewidth 3.

Remark: finding the best variable ordering is a NP-hard problem.

## Bayesian networks

In this section, our goal will be to compute conditional probabilities. What is the probability of a query given evidence?

### Introduction

Explaining away Suppose causes $C_1$ and $C_2$ influence an effect $E$. Conditioning on the effect $E$ and on one of the causes (say $C_1$) changes the probability of the other cause (say $C_2$). In this case, we say that $C_1$ has explained away $C_2$.

Directed acyclic graph A directed acyclic graph (DAG) is a finite directed graph with no directed cycles.

Bayesian network A Bayesian network is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) that specifies a joint distribution over random variables $X=(X_1,...,X_n)$ as a product of local conditional distributions, one for each node:

Remark: Bayesian networks are factor graphs imbued with the language of probability.

Locally normalized For each $x_{\textrm{Parents}(i)}$, all factors are local conditional distributions. Hence they have to satisfy:

As a result, sub-Bayesian networks and conditional distributions are consistent.

Remark: local conditional distributions are the true conditional distributions.

Marginalization The marginalization of a leaf node yields a Bayesian network without that node.

### Probabilistic programs

Concept A probabilistic program randomizes variables assignment. That way, we can write down complex Bayesian networks that generate assignments without us having to explicitly specify associated probabilities.

Remark: examples of probabilistic programs include Hidden Markov model (HMM), factorial HMM, naive Bayes, latent Dirichlet allocation, diseases and symptoms and stochastic block models.

Summary The table below summarizes the common probabilistic programs as well as their applications:

Program |
Algorithm |
Illustration |
Example |

Markov Model | Generate $X_i\sim p(X_i|X_{i-1})$ | Language modeling | |

Hidden Markov Model (HMM) |
Generate $H_t\sim p(H_t|H_{t-1})$ Generate $E_t\sim p(E_t|H_{t})$ |
Object tracking | |

Factorial HMM | Generate $H_t^o\underset{\small o\in\{a,b\}}{\sim} p(H_t^o|H_{t-1}^o)$ Generate $E_t\sim p(E_t|H_t^a,H_t^b)$ |
Multiple object tracking | |

Naive Bayes | Generate $Y\sim p(Y)$ Generate $W_i\sim p(W_i|Y)$ |
Document classification | |

Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) |
Generate $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^K$ distribution Generate $Z_i\sim p(Z_i|\alpha)$ Generate $W_i\sim p(W_i|Z_i)$ |
Topic modeling |

### Inference

General probabilistic inference strategy The strategy to compute the probability $P(Q | E=e)$ of query $Q$ given evidence $E=e$ is as follows:

__Step 1__: Remove variables that are not ancestors of the query $Q$ or the evidence $E$ by marginalization__Step 2__: Convert Bayesian network to factor graph__Step 3__: Condition on the evidence $E=e$__Step 4__: Remove nodes disconnected from the query $Q$ by marginalization__Step 5__: Run a probabilistic inference algorithm (manual, variable elimination, Gibbs sampling, particle filtering)

Forward-backward algorithm This algorithm computes the exact value of $P(H = h_k | E = e)$ (smoothing query) for any $k \in \{1, ..., L\}$ in the case of an HMM of size $L$. To do so, we proceed in 3 steps:

__Step 1__: for $i \in \{1,..., L\}$, compute $F_i(h_i) = \sum_{h_{i-1}} F_{i-1}(h_{i-1})p(h_{i}|h_{i-1})p(e_i|h_i)$__Step 2__: for $i \in \{L,..., 1\}$, compute $B_i(h_i) = \sum_{h_{i+1}} B_{i+1}(h_{i+1})p(h_{i+1}|h_i)p(e_{i+1}|h_{i+1})$__Step 3__: for $i \in \{1,...,L\}$, compute $S_i(h_i) = \frac{F_i(h_i)B_i(h_i)}{\sum_{h_i}F_i(h_i)B_i(h_i)}$

Remark: this algorithm interprets each assignment to be a path where each edge $h_{i-1} \rightarrow h_i$ is of weight $p(h_{i}|h_{i-1})p(e_i|h_i)$.

Gibbs sampling This algorithm is an iterative approximate method that uses a small set of assignments (particles) to represent a large probability distribution. From a random assignment $x$, Gibbs sampling performs the following steps for $i\in \{1,...,n\}$ until convergence:

- For all $u \in \textrm{Domain}_i$, compute the weight $w(u)$ of assignment $x$ where $X_i = u$
- Sample $v$ from the probability distribution induced by $w$: $v \sim P(X_i = v | X_{-i} = x_{-i})$
- Set $X_i = v$

Remark: $X_{-i}$ denotes $X \backslash \{X_i\}$ and $x_{-i}$ represents the corresponding assignment.

Particle filtering This algorithm approximates the posterior density of state variables given the evidence of observation variables by keeping track of $K$ particles at a time. Starting from a set of particles $C$ of size $K$, we run the following 3 steps iteratively:

__Step 1__: proposal - For each old particle $x_{t-1} \in C$, sample $x$ from the transition probability distribution $p(x | x_{t-1})$ and add $x$ to a set $C'$.__Step 2__: weighting - Weigh each $x$ of the set $C'$ by $w(x)=p(e_t|x)$, where $e_t$ is the evidence observed at time $t$.__Step 3__: resampling - Sample $K$ elements from the set $C'$ using the probability distribution induced by $w$ and store them in $C$: these are the current particles $x_t$.

Remark: a more expensive version of this algorithm also keeps track of past particles in the proposal step.

Maximum likelihood If we don't know the local conditional distributions, we can learn them using maximum likelihood.

Laplace smoothing For each distribution $d$ and partial assignment $(x_{\textrm{Parents}(i)},x_i)$, add $\lambda$ to $\textrm{count}_d(x_{\textrm{Parents}(i)},x_i)$, then normalize to get probability estimates.

Algorithm The Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm gives an efficient method at estimating the parameter $\theta$ through maximum likelihood estimation by repeatedly constructing a lower-bound on the likelihood (E-step) and optimizing that lower bound (M-step) as follows:

__E-step__: Evaluate the posterior probability $q(h)$ that each data point $e$ came from a particular cluster $h$ as follows:\[\boxed{q(h)=P(H=h|E=e;\theta)}\]__M-step__: Use the posterior probabilities $q(h)$ as cluster specific weights on data points $e$ to determine $\theta$ through maximum likelihood.