Several methods have recently been proposed to discover a complete causal structure, that is, all the causal directions, under the assumption that disturbance variables have non-Gaussian distributions. However, the estimation results can be biased if there are "latent classes." Latent classes are unobserved discrete variables that have more than one observed child variables. Data that has been generated from different processes are mixed in the presence of latent classes. Several methods have been proposed to estimate the causal structure in the presence of latent classes [12], but all of these are affected by local optima. Therefore, in this paper, we propose a new estimation approach that can solve this problem. The structure of this paper is as follows.

Feature selection, identifying a subset of variables that are relevant for predicting a response, is an important and challenging component of many methods in statistics and machine learning. Feature selection is especially difficult and computationally intensive when the number of variables approaches or exceeds the number of samples, as is often the case for many genomic datasets. Here, we introduce a new approach -- the Bayesian Ising Approximation (BIA) -- to rapidly calculate posterior probabilities for feature relevance in L2 penalized linear regression. In the regime where the regression problem is strongly regularized by the prior, we show that computing the marginal posterior probabilities for features is equivalent to computing the magnetizations of an Ising model. Using a mean field approximation, we show it is possible to rapidly compute the feature selection path described by the posterior probabilities as a function of the L2 penalty. We present simulations and analytical results illustrating the accuracy of the BIA on some simple regression problems. Finally, we demonstrate the applicability of the BIA to high dimensional regression by analyzing a gene expression dataset with nearly 30,000 features.

In this paper we study lifted inference for the Weighted First-Order Model Counting problem (WFOMC), which counts the assignments that satisfy a given sentence in first-order logic (FOL); it has applications in Statistical Relational Learning (SRL) and Probabilistic Databases (PDB). We present several results. First, we describe a lifted inference algorithm that generalizes prior approaches in SRL and PDB. Second, we provide a novel dichotomy result for a non-trivial fragment of FO CNF sentences, showing that for each sentence the WFOMC problem is either in PTIME or #P-hard in the size of the input domain; we prove that, in the first case our algorithm solves the WFOMC problem in PTIME, and in the second case it fails. Third, we present several properties of the algorithm. Finally, we discuss limitations of lifted inference for symmetric probabilistic databases (where the weights of ground literals depend only on the relation name, and not on the constants of the domain), and prove the impossibility of a dichotomy result for the complexity of probabilistic inference for the entire language FOL.

In Bayesian analysis the form of the posterior distribution is often not analytically tractable. To obtain quantities of interest under such a distribution, such as moments or marginal distributions, we typically need to use Monte Carlo methods or approximate the posterior with a more convenient distribution. A popular method of obtaining such an approximation is structured or fixed-form Variational Bayes, which works by numerically minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence of an approximating distribution in the exponential family to the intractable target distribution (Attias, 2000; Beal and Ghahramani, 2006; Jordan et al., 1999; Wainwright and Jordan, 2008). For certain problems, algorithms exist that can solve this optimization problem in much less time than it would take to approximate the posterior using Monte Carlo methods (see e.g.

Motivation: Algorithms that discover variables which are causally related to a target may inform the design of experiments. With observational gene expression data, many methods discover causal variables by measuring each variable's degree of statistical dependence with the target using dependence measures (DMs). However, other methods measure each variable's ability to explain the statistical dependence between the target and the remaining variables in the data using conditional dependence measures (CDMs), since this strategy is guaranteed to find the target's direct causes, direct effects, and direct causes of the direct effects in the infinite sample limit. In this paper, we design a new algorithm in order to systematically compare the relative abilities of DMs and CDMs in discovering causal variables from gene expression data. Results: The proposed algorithm using a CDM is sample efficient, since it consistently outperforms other state-of-the-art local causal discovery algorithms when samples sizes are small. However, the proposed algorithm using a CDM outperforms the proposed algorithm using a DM only when sample sizes are above several hundred. These results suggest that accurate causal discovery from gene expression data using current CDM-based algorithms requires datasets with at least several hundred samples. Availability: The proposed algorithm is freely available at https://github.com/ericstrobl/DvCD.

We introduce a logic for reasoning about evidence, that essentially views evidence as a function from prior beliefs (before making an observation) to posterior beliefs (after making the observation). We provide a sound and complete axiomatization for the logic, and consider the complexity of the decision problem. Although the reasoning in the logic is mainly propositional, we allow variables representing numbers and quantification over them. This expressive power seems necessary to capture important properties of evidence.

Over the last decade, there has been growing interest in the use or measures or change in belief for reasoning with uncertainty in artificial intelligence research. An important characteristic of several methodologies that reason with changes in belief or belief updates, is a property that we term modularity. We call updates that satisfy this property modular updates. Whereas probabilistic measures of belief update - which satisfy the modularity property were first discovered in the nineteenth century, knowledge and discussion of these quantities remains obscure in artificial intelligence research. We define modular updates and discuss their inappropriate use in two influential expert systems.

We consider how an agent should update her uncertainty when it is represented by a set P of probability distributions and the agent observes that a random variable X takes on value x, given that the agent makes decisions using the minimax criterion, perhaps the best-studied and most commonly-used criterion in the literature. We adopt a game-theoretic framework, where the agent plays against a bookie, who chooses some distribution from P. We consider two reasonable games that differ in what the bookie knows when he makes his choice. Anomalies that have been observed before, like time inconsistency, can be understood as arising because different games are being played, against bookies with different information. We characterize the important special cases in which the optimal decision rules according to the minimax criterion amount to either conditioning or simply ignoring the information. Finally, we consider the relationship between conditioning and calibration when uncertainty is described by sets of probabilities.

An agent often has a number of hypotheses, and must choose among them based on observations, or outcomes of experiments. Each of these observations can be viewed as providing evidence for or against various hypotheses. All the attempts to formalize this intuition up to now have assumed that associated with each hypothesis h there is a likelihood function {\mu}h, which is a probability measure that intuitively describes how likely each observation is, conditional on h being the correct hypothesis. We consider an extension of this framework where there is uncertainty as to which of a number of likelihood functions is appropriate, and discuss how one formal approach to defining evidence, which views evidence as a function from priors to posteriors, can be generalized to accommodate this uncertainty.

It is commonly-accepted wisdom that more information is better, and that information should never be ignored. Here we argue, using both a Bayesian and a non-Bayesian analysis, that in some situations you are better off ignoring information if your uncertainty is represented by a set of probability measures. These include situations in which the information is relevant for the prediction task at hand. In the non-Bayesian analysis, we show how ignoring information avoids dilation, the phenomenon that additional pieces of information sometimes lead to an increase in uncertainty. In the Bayesian analysis, we show that for small sample sizes and certain prediction tasks, the Bayesian posterior based on a noninformative prior yields worse predictions than simply ignoring the given information.