We consider the combined use of resampling and partial rejection control in sequential Monte Carlo methods, also known as particle filters. While the variance reducing properties of rejection control are known, there has not been (to the best of our knowledge) any work on unbiased estimation of the marginal likelihood (also known as the model evidence or the normalizing constant) in this type of particle filters. Being able to estimate the marginal likelihood without bias is highly relevant for model comparison, computation of interpretable and reliable confidence intervals, and in exact approximation methods, such as particle Markov chain Monte Carlo. In the paper we present a particle filter with rejection control that enables unbiased estimation of the marginal likelihood.

Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods have a drawback when working with a target distribution or likelihood function that is computationally expensive to evaluate, specially when working with big data. This paper focuses on Metropolis-Hastings (MH) algorithm for unimodal distributions. Here, an enhanced MH algorithm is proposed that requires less number of expensive function evaluations, has shorter burn-in period, and uses a better proposal distribution. The main innovations include the use of Bayesian optimization to reach the high probability region quickly, emulating the target distribution using Gaussian processes (GP), and using Laplace approximation of the GP to build a proposal distribution that captures the underlying correlation better. The experiments show significant improvement over the regular MH. Statistical comparison between the results from two algorithms is presented.

Integrals of linearly constrained multivariate Gaussian densities are a frequent problem in machine learning and statistics, arising in tasks like generalized linear models and Bayesian optimization. Yet they are notoriously hard to compute, and to further complicate matters, the numerical values of such integrals may be very small. We present an efficient black-box algorithm that exploits geometry for the estimation of integrals over a small, truncated Gaussian volume, and to simulate therefrom. Our algorithm uses the Holmes-Diaconis-Ross (HDR) method combined with an analytic version of elliptical slice sampling (ESS). Adapted to the linear setting, ESS allows for efficient, rejection-free sampling, because intersections of ellipses and domain boundaries have closed-form solutions. The key idea of HDR is to decompose the integral into easier-to-compute conditional probabilities by using a sequence of nested domains. Remarkably, it allows for direct computation of the logarithm of the integral value and thus enables the computation of extremely small probability masses. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our tailored combination of HDR and ESS on high-dimensional integrals and on entropy search for Bayesian optimization.

The runtime performance of modern SAT solvers is deeply connected to the phase transition behavior of CNF formulas. While CNF solving has witnessed significant runtime improvement over the past two decades, the same does not hold for several other classes such as the conjunction of cardinality and XOR constraints, denoted as CARD-XOR formulas. The problem of determining the satisfiability of CARD-XOR formulas is a fundamental problem with a wide variety of applications ranging from discrete integration in the field of artificial intelligence to maximum likelihood decoding in coding theory. The runtime behavior of random CARD-XOR formulas is unexplored in prior work. In this paper, we present the first rigorous empirical study to characterize the runtime behavior of 1-CARD-XOR formulas. We show empirical evidence of a surprising phase-transition that follows a non-linear tradeoff between CARD and XOR constraints.

We present an axiomatic way of assigning probabilities to black box models. In particular, we quantify an upper bound for probability of a model or in terms of information theory, a lower bound for amount of information that is stored in a model. In our setup, maximizing probabilities of models is equivalent to removing assumptions or information stored in the model. Furthermore, we represent the problem of learning from an alternative view where the underlying probability space is considered directly. In this perspective both the true underlying model and the model at hand are events. Consequently, the problem of learning is represented as minimizing the probability of the symmetric difference of the model and the true underlying model.

A salient approach to interpretable machine learning is to restrict modeling to simple and hence understandable models. In the Bayesian framework, this can be pursued by restricting the model structure and prior to favor interpretable models. Fundamentally, however, interpretability is about users' preferences, not the data generation mechanism: it is more natural to formulate interpretability as a utility function. In this work, we propose an interpretability utility, which explicates the trade-off between explanation fidelity and interpretability in the Bayesian framework. The method consists of two steps. First, a reference model, possibly a black-box Bayesian predictive model compromising no accuracy, is constructed and fitted to the training data. Second, a proxy model from an interpretable model family that best mimics the predictive behaviour of the reference model is found by optimizing the interpretability utility function. The approach is model agnostic - neither the interpretable model nor the reference model are restricted to be from a certain class of models - and the optimization problem can be solved using standard tools in the chosen model family. Through experiments on real-word data sets using decision trees as interpretable models and Bayesian additive regression models as reference models, we show that for the same level of interpretability, our approach generates more accurate models than the earlier alternative of restricting the prior. We also propose a systematic way to measure stabilities of interpretabile models constructed by different interpretability approaches and show that our proposed approach generates more stable models.

This chapter presents probability logic as a rationality framework for human reasoning under uncertainty. Selected formal-normative aspects of probability logic are discussed in the light of experimental evidence. Specifically, probability logic is characterized as a generalization of bivalent truth-functional propositional logic (short "logic"), as being connexive, and as being nonmonotonic. The chapter discusses selected argument forms and associated uncertainty propagation rules. Throughout the chapter, the descriptive validity of probability logic is compared to logic, which was used as the gold standard of reference for assessing the rationality of human reasoning in the 20th century.

For example, we might expect to encounter sensor malfunctions in a wireless sensor network at a rate proportional to the size of the network. Therefore, there is a growing need to develop machine learning techniques that enable satisfactory training and inference from incomplete data. Imputation, where missing data values are filled with suitable values inferred from observations, represents a promising technique for extending machine learning methods to handle missing data. Given their explicit representation of underlying data distributions, Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs) are an appealing choice for imputing missing values. With a well trained RBM, the conditional probabilities of the missing values given the observed values remain accessible via either direct calculation (in a theoretical sense) or indirect Gibbs sampling. A variety of training and imputing procedures have been proposed to allow the application of RBMs to handle missing data, with various computational costs.

We consider the task of learning a causal graph in the presence of latent confounders given i.i.d.~samples from the model. While current algorithms for causal structure discovery in the presence of latent confounders are constraint-based, we here propose a score-based approach. We prove that under assumptions weaker than faithfulness, any sparsest independence map (IMAP) of the distribution belongs to the Markov equivalence class of the true model. This motivates the \emph{Sparsest Poset} formulation - that posets can be mapped to minimal IMAPs of the true model such that the sparsest of these IMAPs is Markov equivalent to the true model. Motivated by this result, we propose a greedy algorithm over the space of posets for causal structure discovery in the presence of latent confounders and compare its performance to the current state-of-the-art algorithms FCI and FCI+ on synthetic data.

The concept of causality has a controversial history. The question of whether it is possible to represent and address causal problems with probability theory, or if fundamentally new mathematics such as the do-calculus is required has been hotly debated, In this paper we demonstrate that, while it is critical to explicitly model our assumptions on the impact of intervening in a system, provided we do so, estimating causal effects can be done entirely within the standard Bayesian paradigm. The invariance assumptions underlying causal graphical models can be encoded in ordinary Probabilistic graphical models, allowing causal estimation with Bayesian statistics, equivalent to the do-calculus.