Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAlgorithms for Causal Reasoning in Probability Trees
159
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Pedro Alejandro Ortega
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Probability trees are one of the simplest models of causal generative processes. They possess clean semantics and -- unlike causal Bayesian networks -- they can represent context-specific causal dependencies, which are necessary for e.g. causal induction. Yet, they have received little attention from the AI and ML community. Here we present concrete algorithms for causal reasoning in discrete probability trees that cover the entire causal hierarchy (association, intervention, and counterfactuals), and operate on arbitrary propositional and causal events. Our work expands the domain of causal reasoning to a very general class of discrete stochastic processes.
rate research
Read More
Standard approaches to probabilistic reasoning require that one possesses an explicit model of the distribution in question. But, the empirical learning of models of probability distributions from partial observations is a problem for which efficient algorithms are generally not known. In this work we consider the use of bounded-degree fragments of the sum-of-squares logic as a probability logic. Prior work has shown that we can decide refutability for such fragments in polynomial-time. We propose to use such fragments to answer queries about whether a given probability distribution satisfies a given system of constraints and bounds on expected values. We show that in answering such queries, such constraints and bounds can be implicitly learned from partial observations in polynomial-time as well. It is known that this logic is capable of deriving many bounds that are useful in probabilistic analysis. We show here that it furthermore captures useful polynomial-time fragments of resolution. Thus, these fragments are also quite expressive.
Data based judgments go into artificial intelligence applications but they undergo paradoxical reversal when seemingly unnecessary additional data is provided. Examples of this are Simpsons reversal and the disjunction effect where the beliefs about the data change once it is presented or aggregated differently. Sometimes the significance of the difference can be evaluated using statistical tests such as Pearsons chi-squared or Fishers exact test, but this may not be helpful in threshold-based decision systems that operate with incomplete information. To mitigate risks in the use of algorithms in decision-making, we consider the question of modeling of beliefs. We argue that evidence supports that beliefs are not classical statistical variables and they should, in the general case, be considered as superposition states of disjoint or polar outcomes. We analyze the disjunction effect from the perspective of the belief as a quantum vector.
The ability to perform causal and counterfactual reasoning are central properties of human intelligence. Decision-making systems that can perform these types of reasoning have the potential to be more generalizable and interpretable. Simulations have helped advance the state-of-the-art in this domain, by providing the ability to systematically vary parameters (e.g., confounders) and generate examples of the outcomes in the case of counterfactual scenarios. However, simulating complex temporal causal events in multi-agent scenarios, such as those that exist in driving and vehicle navigation, is challenging. To help address this, we present a high-fidelity simulation environment that is designed for developing algorithms for causal discovery and counterfactual reasoning in the safety-critical context. A core component of our work is to introduce textit{agency}, such that it is simple to define and create complex scenarios using high-level definitions. The vehicles then operate with agency to complete these objectives, meaning low-level behaviors need only be controlled if necessary. We perform experiments with three state-of-the-art methods to create baselines and highlight the affordances of this environment. Finally, we highlight challenges and opportunities for future work.
Humans are well-versed in reasoning about the behaviors of physical objects when choosing actions to accomplish tasks, while it remains a major challenge for AI. To facilitate research addressing this problem, we propose a new benchmark that requires an agent to reason about physical scenarios and take an action accordingly. Inspired by the physical knowledge acquired in infancy and the capabilities required for robots to operate in real-world environments, we identify 15 essential physical scenarios. For each scenario, we create a wide variety of distinct task templates, and we ensure all the task templates within the same scenario can be solved by using one specific physical rule. By having such a design, we evaluate two distinct levels of generalization, namely the local generalization and the broad generalization. We conduct an extensive evaluation with human players, learning agents with varying input types and architectures, and heuristic agents with different strategies. The benchmark gives a Phy-Q (physical reasoning quotient) score that reflects the physical reasoning ability of the agents. Our evaluation shows that 1) all agents fail to reach human performance, and 2) learning agents, even with good local generalization ability, struggle to learn the underlying physical reasoning rules and fail to generalize broadly. We encourage the development of intelligent agents with broad generalization abilities in physical domains.
Reasoning about the behaviour of physical objects is a key capability of agents operating in physical worlds. Humans are very experienced in physical reasoning while it remains a major challenge for AI. To facilitate research addressing this problem, several benchmarks have been proposed recently. However, these benchmarks do not enable us to measure an agents granular physical reasoning capabilities when solving a complex reasoning task. In this paper, we propose a new benchmark for physical reasoning that allows us to test individual physical reasoning capabilities. Inspired by how humans acquire these capabilities, we propose a general hierarchy of physical reasoning capabilities with increasing complexity. Our benchmark tests capabilities according to this hierarchy through generated physical reasoning tasks in the video game Angry Birds. This benchmark enables us to conduct a comprehensive agent evaluation by measuring the agents granular physical reasoning capabilities. We conduct an evaluation with human players, learning agents, and heuristic agents and determine their capabilities. Our evaluation shows that learning agents, with good local generalization ability, still struggle to learn the underlying physical reasoning capabilities and perform worse than current state-of-the-art heuristic agents and humans. We believe that this benchmark will encourage researchers to develop intelligent agents with advanced, human-like physical reasoning capabilities. URL: https://github.com/Cheng-Xue/Hi-Phy
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
