Researcher profile

Kuo-Chu Chang

Kuo-Chu Chang contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - Baseline
3works
0followers
1topics
1close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2013arXiv

Symbolic Probabilistic Inference with Continuous Variables

Research on Symbolic Probabilistic Inference (SPI) [2, 3] has provided an algorithm for resolving general queries in Bayesian networks. SPI applies the concept of dependency directed backward search to probabilistic inference, and is incremental with respect to both queries and observations. Unlike traditional Bayesian network inferencing algorithms, SPI algorithm is goal directed, performing only those calculations that are required to respond to queries. Research to date on SPI applies to Bayesian networks with discrete-valued variables and does not address variables with continuous values. In this papers, we extend the SPI algorithm to handle Bayesian networks made up of continuous variables where the relationships between the variables are restricted to be ?linear gaussian?. We call this variation of the SPI algorithm, SPI Continuous (SPIC). SPIC modifies the three basic SPI operations: multiplication, summation, and substitution. However, SPIC retains the framework of the SPI algorithm, namely building the search tree and recursive query mechanism and therefore retains the goal-directed and incrementality features of SPI.

preprint2013arXiv

Symbolic Probabilistic Inference with Evidence Potential

Recent research on the Symbolic Probabilistic Inference (SPI) algorithm[2] has focused attention on the importance of resolving general queries in Bayesian networks. SPI applies the concept of dependency-directed backward search to probabilistic inference, and is incremental with respect to both queries and observations. In response to this research we have extended the evidence potential algorithm [3] with the same features. We call the extension symbolic evidence potential inference (SEPI). SEPI like SPI can handle generic queries and is incremental with respect to queries and observations. While in SPI, operations are done on a search tree constructed from the nodes of the original network, in SEPI, a clique-tree structure obtained from the evidence potential algorithm [3] is the basic framework for recursive query processing. In this paper, we describe the systematic query and caching procedure of SEPI. SEPI begins with finding a clique tree from a Bayesian network-the standard procedure of the evidence potential algorithm. With the clique tree, various probability distributions are computed and stored in each clique. This is the ?pre-processing? step of SEPI. Once this step is done, the query can then be computed. To process a query, a recursive process similar to the SPI algorithm is used. The queries are directed to the root clique and decomposed into queries for the clique's subtrees until a particular query can be answered at the clique at which it is directed. The algorithm and the computation are simple. The SEPI algorithm will be presented in this paper along with several examples.

preprint2013arXiv

Weighing and Integrating Evidence for Stochastic Simulation in Bayesian Networks

Stochastic simulation approaches perform probabilistic inference in Bayesian networks by estimating the probability of an event based on the frequency that the event occurs in a set of simulation trials. This paper describes the evidence weighting mechanism, for augmenting the logic sampling stochastic simulation algorithm [Henrion, 1986]. Evidence weighting modifies the logic sampling algorithm by weighting each simulation trial by the likelihood of a network's evidence given the sampled state node values for that trial. We also describe an enhancement to the basic algorithm which uses the evidential integration technique [Chin and Cooper, 1987]. A comparison of the basic evidence weighting mechanism with the Markov blanket algorithm [Pearl, 1987], the logic sampling algorithm, and the evidence integration algorithm is presented. The comparison is aided by analyzing the performance of the algorithms in a simple example network.