One popular class of unsupervised algorithms are competitive algorithms. Inthe traditional view of competition, only one competitor, the winner, adapts for any given case. I propose to view competitive adaptationas attempting to fit a blend of simple probability generators (such as gaussians) to a set of data-points. The maximum likelihoodfit of a model of this type suggests a "softer" form of competition, in which all competitors adapt in proportion to the relative probability that the input came from each competitor. I investigate one application of the soft competitive model, placement ofradial basis function centers for function interpolation, and show that the soft model can give better performance with little additional computational cost. 1 INTRODUCTION Interest in unsupervised learning has increased recently due to the application of more sophisticated mathematical tools (Linsker, 1988; Plumbley and Fallside, 1988; Sanger, 1989) and the success of several elegant simulations of large scale selforganization (Linsker,1986; Kohonen, 1982). One popular class of unsupervised algorithms are competitive algorithms, which have appeared as components in a variety of systems (Von der Malsburg, 1973; Fukushima, 1975; Grossberg, 1978). Generalizing the definition of Rumelhart and Zipser (1986), a competitive adaptive system consists of a collection of modules which are structurally identical except, possibly, for random initial parameter variation.

Bayesian belief networks provide a natural, efficient method for representing probabilistic dependencies among a set of variables. For these reasons, numerous researchers are exploring the use of belief networks as a knowledge representation in artificial intelligence. Algorithms have been developed previously for efficient probabilistic inference using special classes of belief networks. More general classes of belief networks, however, have eluded efforts to develop efficient inference algorithms. We show that probabilistic inference using belief networks is NP-hard.

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.

Based on the proceedings of a conference on Influence Diagrams for Decision Analysis, Inference and Prediction held at the University of California at Berkeley in May of 1988, this is the first book devoted to the subject. The editors have brought together recent results from researchers actively investigating influence diagrams and also from practitioners who have used influence diagrams in developing models for problem-solving in a wide range of fields.

An important feature of Bayesian networks is that they facilitate explicit encoding of information about independencies in the domain, information that is indispensable for efficient inferencing. This article characterizes all independence assertions that logically follow from the topology of a network and develops a linear time algorithm that identifies these assertions. The algorithm's correctness is based on the soundness of a graphical criterion, called d-separation, and its optimality stems from the completeness of d-separation. An enhanced version of d-separation, called D-separation, is defined, extending the algorithm to networks that encode functional dependencies. Finally, the algorithm is shown to work for a broad class of nonprobabilistic independencies.

Díez's algorithm for the noisy MAX is very efficient for polytrees, but when the network has loops, it has to be combined with local conditioning, a suboptimal propagation algorithm. Other algorithms, based on several factorizations of the conditional probability of the noisy MAX, are not as efficient for polytrees but can be combined with general propagation algorithms such as clustering or variable elimination, which are more efficient for networks with loops. In this article we propose a new factorization of the noisy MAX that amounts to Díez's algorithm in the case of polytrees and at the same time is more efficient than previous factorizations when combined with either variable elimination or clustering.

In AAAI-90, Vol. 2, pp. 1010–1015.

Decision theory and nonmonotonic logics are formalisms that can be employed to represent and solve problems of planning under uncertainty. We analyze the usefulness of these two approaches by establishing a simple correspondence between the two formalisms. The analysis indicates that planning using nonmonotonic logic comprises two decision-theoretic concepts: probabilities (degrees of belief in planning hypotheses) and utilities (degrees of preference for planning outcomes). We present and discuss examples of the following lessons from this decision-theoretic view of nonmonotonic reasoning: (1) decision theory and nonmonotonic logics are intended to solve different components of the planning problem; (2) when considered in the context of planning under uncertainty, nonmonotonic logics do not retain the domain-independent characteristics of classical (monotonic) logic; and (3) because certain nonmonotonic programming paradigms (for example, frame-based inheritance, nonmonotonic logics) are inherently problem specific, they might be inappropriate for use in solving certain types of planning problems.

Decision theory and nonmonotonic logics are formalisms that can be employed to represent and solve problems of planning under uncertainty. We analyze the usefulness of these two approaches by establishing a simple correspondence between the two formalisms. The analysis indicates that planning using nonmonotonic logic comprises two decision-theoretic concepts: probabilities (degrees of belief in planning hypotheses) and utilities (degrees of preference for planning outcomes). We present and discuss examples of the following lessons from this decision-theoretic view of nonmonotonic reasoning: (1) decision theory and nonmonotonic logics are intended to solve different components of the planning problem; (2) when considered in the context of planning under uncertainty, nonmonotonic logics do not retain the domain-independent characteristics of classical (monotonic) logic; and (3) because certain nonmonotonic programming paradigms (for example, frame-based inheritance, nonmonotonic logics) are inherently problem specific, they might be inappropriate for use in solving certain types of planning problems. We discuss how these conclusions affect several current AI research issues.

This article is concerned with the computational aspects of combining evidence within the theory of belief functions. It shows that by taking advantage of logical or categorical relations among the questions we consider, we can sometimes avoid the computational complexity associated with brute-force application of Dempster's rule. The mathematical setting for this article is the lattice of partitions of a fixed overall frame of discernment. Different questions are represented by different partitions of this frame, and the categorical relations among these questions are represented by relations of qualitative conditional independence or dependence among the partitions. Qualitative conditional independence is a categorical rather than a probabilistic concept, but it is analogous to conditional independence for random variables.