Bridging the gap between theory and practice of approximate bayesian inference

Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, ICCM 2012

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 199-204

  Kwisthout, Johan ^a   Van Rooij, Iris ^b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Algorithms; Approximation; Baycsian inference; Computational; NP hard; Parameterized complexity theory

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION; BAYCSIAN INFERENCE; COMPUTATIONAL; NP-HARD; PARAMETERIZED COMPLEXITY;

ALGORITHMS; APPROXIMATION ALGORITHMS; BAYESIAN NETWORKS; COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; INFERENCE ENGINES; POLYNOMIALS;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

EID: 84866078009     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. Abdelbar, A.M., & Hedetniemi, S.M. (1998). Approximating MAPs for belief networks is NP-hard and other theorems. Artificial Intelligence, 102, 21-38.
2. Baker, C.L., Saxe, R., & Tenenbaum, J.B. (2009). Action understanding as inverse planning. Cognition, 113, 329- 349.
3. nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1643-1648.
4. nd International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, pp. 1-14.
5. th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 675-679.
6. Chater, N., & Manning, C.D. (2006). Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10(1), 335-344.
7. Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (1999). Ten years of the rational analysis of cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 57-65.
8. Chernoff, H. (1952). A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 25(4), 493-507.
9. Cooper, G.F. (1990). The computational complexity of probabilistic inference using Bayesian belief networks. Artificial Intelligence 42(2), 393-405.
10. Cuijpers, R., Van Schie, H.T., Koppen, M., Erlhagen, W., & Bekkering, H. (2006). Goals and means in action observation: A computational approach. Neural Networks, 19, 311-322.
11. Downey, R., & Fellows, M. (1999). Parameterized Complexity. Berlin: Springer.
12. Engbert, R., & Kriigel, A. (2010). Readers use Bayesian estimation for eye movement control. Psychological Science, 21(3), 366-371.
13. Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Goldstein, D. G. (2008). Fast and frugal heuristics are plausible models of cognition: Reply to Dougherty, Franco-Watkins, and Thomas. Psychological Review, 115( 1), 230-239.
14. Kellerer, H., & Pferschy, U. (1999). A new fully polynomial time approximation scheme for the knapsack problem, Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 5(1), 59-71.
15. Koller, D., & Friedman, N. (2009). Probabilistic graphical models: Principles and techniques. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Kruschke, J.K. (2010). Bridging levels of analysis: comment on McClelland et al. and Griffiths et al. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14( 8), 344-345.
17. Kwisthout, J. (2009). The computational complexity of probabilistic networks. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Utrecht University, 2009.
18. th Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
19. Kwisthout, J. (2011). Most probable explanations in Bayesian networks: Complexity and tractability. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 52, 1452-1469.
20. th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 349-356.
21. Kwisthout, J., Wareham, T., & van Rooij, I. (2011). Bayesian intractability is not an ailment that approximation can cure. Cognitive Science, 35(5), 779- 784.
22. Motwani, R., & Raghavan, P. (1995). Randomized Algorithms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 50-55.
24. Park, J.D. (2002). Using weighted MAX-SAT engines to solve MPE. Proceedings of the Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 682-687.
25. Park, J.D., & Darwiche, A. (2004). Complexity results and approximation settings for MAP explanations. Journal of A rtificial Intelligence Research, 21, 101-133.
26. Roth, D. (1996). On the hardness of approximate reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 52(1-2), 273-302.
27. Sanborn, A.N., Griffiths, T.L., & Navarro, D.J. (2010). Rational approximations to rational models: Alternative algorithms for category learning. Psychological Review, 717(4), 1144-1167.
28. Shimony, S.E. (1994). Finding MAPs for belief networks is NP-hard. Artificial Intelligence, 68(2), 399-410.
29. Sloman, S.A., & Hagmayer, Y. (2006). The causal psycho-logic of choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 407- 412.
30. Stewart, N., Chater, N. & Brown, G.D.A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology', 53, 1-26.
31. Valiant, L. (1984). A theory of the learnable. Communications of the ACM, 27(11), 1134-1142.
32. van Rooij, I. (2008). The tractable cognition thesis. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 939-984.
33. th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 915- 920.
34. van Rooij, I., Kwisthout, J., Blokpoel, M., Szymanik, J., Wareham, T., & Toni, I. (2011). Communicating intentions: Computationally easy or difficult? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(52), 1-18.
35. van Rooij, I., & Wareham, T. (2008). Parameterized complexity in cognitive modeling: Foundations, applications and opportunities. The Computer Journal 51, 385-404.
36. van Rooij, I., & Wareham, T. (2011). Intractability and approximation of optimization theories of cognition. Under review.
37. stAnnual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 148-153.
38. Wolpert, D.M., & Ghahramani, Z. (2005). Bayes rule in perception, action and cognition. In R.L. Gregory (Ed.), Oxford companion to consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Yuille, A., & Kersten, D. (2006). Vision as Bayesian inference: analysis by synthesis? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10(1) 301-308.
40. th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 681-690.