bayesian programming - supélec · bayesian-programming.org building jaynesÕ robot 1. e.t. jaynes,...
TRANSCRIPT
Bayesian Programming
Pierre Bessière
CNRS - INRIA - Grenoble UniversityLaboratoire LIG - E-Motion
Bayesian-Programming.org
Building Jaynes’ robot
1
E.T. Jaynes, Probability theory: The logic of Science, Page 9
Introducing the RobotIn order to direct attention to constructive things and away from controversial irrelevancies, we shall invent an imaginary being.
Its brain is to be designed by us, so that it reasons according to certain
definite rules.
These rules will be deduced from simple desiderata which, it appears to us, would be desirable in human brains; i.e., we think that a rational person, should he discover that he was violating one of these desiderata, would wish to revise his thinking.
In principle, we are free to adopt any rules we please; that is our way of defining which robot we shall study. Comparing its reasoning with yours, if you find no resemblance you are in turn free to reject our robot and design a different one more to your liking. But if you find a very strong resemblance, and decide that you want and trust this robot to help you in your own problems of inference, then that will be an accomplishment of the theory, not a premise.
Our robot is going to reason about propositions. As already indicated above, we shall denote various propositions by italicized capital letters, A, B, C, etc., and for the time being we must require that any proposition used must have, to the robot, an unambiguous meaning and must be of the simple, definite logical type that must
be either true or false. That is, until otherwise stated we shall be concerned only with two valued logic, or Aristotelian logic.
We do not require that the truth or falsity of such an Aristotelian proposition be ascertainable by any feasible investigation; indeed, our inability to do this is usually just the reason why we need the robot's help.
...
2
Incompleteness(1989)
Probability as an
alternative to Logic
(1991)
Formalism:Bayesian Programming
(1994)
Inference:ProBT®
(1995)
IndustrialApplications:
ProBAYES(2003)
Cognitive models:BIBA, BACS
(2000)
3
Incompleteness(1989)
Probability as an
alternative to Logic
(1991)
Formalism:Bayesian Programming
(1994)
Inference:ProBT®
(1995)
IndustrialApplications:
ProBAYES(2003)
Cognitive models:BIBA, BACS
(2000)
3
Incompleteness(1989)
Probability as an
alternative to Logic
(1991)
Formalism:Bayesian Programming
(1994)
Inference:ProBT®
(1995)
IndustrialApplications:
ProBAYES(2003)
Cognitive models:BIBA, BACS
(2000)
3
Incompleteness(1989)
Probability as an
alternative to Logic
(1991)
Formalism:Bayesian Programming
(1994)
Inference:ProBT®
(1995)
IndustrialApplications:
ProBAYES(2003)
Cognitive models:BIBA, BACS
(2000)
3
Incompleteness(1989)
Overview
Probability as an
alternative to Logic
(1991)
Formalism:Bayesian Programming
(1994)
Inference:ProBT®
(1995)
IndustrialApplications:
ProBAYES(2003)
Cognitive models:BIBA, BACS
(2000)
4
IncompletenessBeam-in-the-Bin experiment (set-up)
5
IncompletenessBeam-in-the-Bin experiment (Result 1)
6
IncompletenessBeam-in-the-Bin experiment (Result 2)
7
IncompletenessBeam-in-the-Bin experiment (Result 3)
8
IncompletenessBeam-in-the-Bin experiment (Result 3)
8
IncompletenessLogical paradigm
AvoidObstacle
Environment
9
IncompletenessLogical paradigm
AvoidObstacle
Environment
O1begin......end
AvoidObs(01)
P
A
9
IncompletenessLogical paradigm
AvoidObstacle
Environment
=?
O1
O1begin......end
AvoidObs(01)
P
A
9
IncompletenessLogical paradigm
AvoidObstacle
Environment
=?
O1
Incomp
letnessO1
begin......end
AvoidObs(01)
P
A
9
Incompleteness(1989)
Overview
Probability as an
alternative to Logic
(1991)
Formalism:Bayesian Programming
(1994)
Inference:ProBT®
(1995)
IndustrialApplications:
ProBAYES(2003)
Cognitive models:BIBA, BACS
(2000)
10
Bayesian ApproachPrinciple
Environment
11
Bayesian ApproachPrinciple
Environment
Avoid Obstacle
ConnaissancesPréalables
R ( S , M)
11
Bayesian ApproachPrinciple
Environment
Avoid Obstacle
ConnaissancesPréalables
R ( S , M)
M
SDonnées Expérimentales
P(MS | DC)
11
Bayesian ApproachPrinciple
Environment
Avoid Obstacle
ConnaissancesPréalables
R ( S , M)
M
SDonnées Expérimentales
P(MS | DC)
=P(M | SDC)
11
Bayesian ApproachAn alternative to Logic
Incompleteness
12
Bayesian ApproachAn alternative to Logic
Incompleteness
Preliminary Knowledge+
Experimental Data=
Probabilistic Representation
Uncertainty
Learning
Entropy Principles
12
Bayesian ApproachAn alternative to Logic
Incompleteness
Preliminary Knowledge+
Experimental Data=
Probabilistic Representation
Uncertainty
Bayesian inference
Decision
Learning
Entropy Principles
�
P a( ) +P ¬a( ) =1
�
P a∧b( ) = P(a)×P(b | a) = P(b)×P(a | b)
12
Incompleteness(1989)
Overview
Probability as an
alternative to Logic
(1991)
Formalism:Bayesian Programming
(1994)
Inference:ProBT®
(1995)
IndustrialApplications:
ProBAYES(2003)
Cognitive models:BIBA, BACS
(2000)
13
Bayesian Programming
14
Bayesian ProgrammingB
ayesia
n P
ro
gr
am
Descr
ipti
on
Question
14
Bayesian ProgrammingB
ayesia
n P
ro
gr
am
Descr
ipti
on
Question
Specification
Identification
14
Bayesian ProgrammingB
ayesia
n P
ro
gr
am
Descr
ipti
on
Question
Specification
Identification
•Variables
•Decomposition
•Parametric Forms
14
Bayesian ProgrammingB
ayesia
n P
ro
gr
am
Descr
ipti
on
Question
Specification
Identification
•Variables
•Decomposition
•Parametric Forms
14
Bayesian ProgrammingB
ayesia
n P
ro
gr
am
Descr
ipti
on
Question
Specification
Identification
•Variables
•Decomposition
•Parametric Forms
14
Bayesian ProgrammingB
ayesia
n P
ro
gr
am
Descr
ipti
on
Question
Specification
Identification
•Variables
•Decomposition
•Parametric Forms
14
Bayesian ProgrammingB
ayesia
n P
ro
gr
am
Descr
ipti
on
Question
Specification
Identification
•Variables
•Decomposition
•Parametric Forms
•Learning from instances
14
Bayesian ProgrammingB
ayesia
n P
ro
gr
am
Descr
ipti
on
Question
Specification
Identification
•Variables
•Decomposition
•Parametric Forms
•Learning from instances
14
Bayesian ProgrammingRelated formalisms
15
Incompleteness(1989)
Overview
Probability as an
alternative to Logic
(1991)
Formalism:Bayesian Programming
(1994)
Inference:ProBT®
(1995)
IndustrialApplications:
ProBAYES(2003)
Cognitive models:BIBA, BACS
(2000)
16
ProBT®B
ayesia
n P
ro
gr
am
Descr
ipti
on
Question
Specification
Identification
•Variables
•Decomposition
•Parametric Forms
•Learning from instances
17
ProBT®
main (){
//Variables plFloat read_time; plIntegerType id_type(0,1); plFloat times[5] = {1,2,3,5,10}; plSparseType time_type(5,times); plSymbol id("id",id_type); plSymbol time("time",time_type);
//Parametrical forms //Construction of P(id) plProbValue id_dist[2] = {0.75,0.25}; plProbTable P_id(id,id_dist);
//Construction of P(time | id = john) plProbValue t_john_dist[5] = {20,30,10,5,2}; plProbTable P_t_john(time,t_john_dist); //Construction of P(time | id = bill) plProbValue t_bill_dist[5] = {2,6,10,40,20}; plProbTable P_t_bill(time,t_bill_dist); //Construction de P(time | id) plKernelTable Pt_id(time,id); plValues t_and_id(time^id); t_and_id[id] = 0; Pt_id.push(P_t_john,t_and_id); t_and_id[id] = 1;
Pt_id.push(P_t_bill,t_and_id); //Decomposition // P(time id) = P(id) P(time | id) plJointDistribution jd(time^id,P_id*Pt_id);
//Question //Getting the question P(id | time) plCndKernel Pid_t; jd.ask(Pid_t,id,time);
//Read a time from the key board cout<<"P(id,time)= "<<Pid_t<<"\n"; cout<<"Time? : "; cin>>read_time;
//Getting P(id | time = read_time) plKernel Pid_readTime;
Bayesia
n P
ro
gr
am
Descr
ipti
on
Question
Bayesian-Programming.org
17
Question P X1 ∧X 2 ∧ ...∧Xn( ) = P L1( ) ×P L2 | R2( ) × ...×P Lk | Rk( )
18
Question P X1 ∧X 2 ∧ ...∧Xn( ) = P L1( ) ×P L2 | R2( ) × ...×P Lk | Rk( )
�
P Search |Known( )
18
Question P X1 ∧X 2 ∧ ...∧Xn( ) = P L1( ) ×P L2 | R2( ) × ...×P Lk | Rk( )
�
P Search |Known( )
�
= P Search∧Free |Known( )Free∑
18
Question P X1 ∧X 2 ∧ ...∧Xn( ) = P L1( ) ×P L2 | R2( ) × ...×P Lk | Rk( )
�
P Search |Known( )
�
= P Search∧Free |Known( )Free∑
�
=P Search∧Free∧Known( )
P Known( )Free∑
18
Question P X1 ∧X 2 ∧ ...∧Xn( ) = P L1( ) ×P L2 | R2( ) × ...×P Lk | Rk( )
�
P Search |Known( )
�
= P Search∧Free |Known( )Free∑
�
=P Search∧Free∧Known( )
P Known( )Free∑
�
= 1Z× P Search∧Free∧Known( )Free∑
18
Question P X1 ∧X 2 ∧ ...∧Xn( ) = P L1( ) ×P L2 | R2( ) × ...×P Lk | Rk( )
�
P Search |Known( )
�
= P Search∧Free |Known( )Free∑
�
=P Search∧Free∧Known( )
P Known( )Free∑
�
= 1Z× P Search∧Free∧Known( )Free∑
�
= 1Z× P L1( ) ×P L2 | R2( ) × ...×P Lk | Rk( )Free∑
18
Symbolic simplification P Search |Known( ) = 1
Z× P Li | Ri( )
i=0
k
∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
Free∑
19
Symbolic simplification P Search |Known( ) = 1
Z× P Li | Ri( )
i=0
k
∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
Free∑
Factorization:
�
P Search |Known( ) = 1Z× P Lj | R j( )j∈J∏ × P Lk | Rk( )
k∈K∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
Free1∑
19
Symbolic simplification P Search |Known( ) = 1
Z× P Li | Ri( )
i=0
k
∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
Free∑
Factorization:
�
P Search |Known( ) = 1Z× P Lj | R j( )j∈J∏ × P Lk | Rk( )
k∈K∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
Free1∑
�
P Search |Known( ) = 1Z× P Lj | R j( )j∈J∏ × P Ll | Rl( )
l∈L∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
Free2∑Sum to 1:
[Bessière et al. 2003]
19
Symbolic simplification P Search |Known( ) = 1
Z× P Li | Ri( )
i=0
k
∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
Free∑
Factorization:
�
P Search |Known( ) = 1Z× P Lj | R j( )j∈J∏ × P Lk | Rk( )
k∈K∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
Free1∑
�
P Search |Known( ) = 1Z× P Lj | R j( )j∈J∏ × P Ll | Rl( )
l∈L∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
Free2∑Sum to 1:
[Bessière et al. 2003]
Distributivity: Generalized distributive law [Aji & McEliece2000]Restrictions successives [Raoult & Smail2003]
�
P Search |Known( ) = 1Z× P Lj | R j( )j∈J∏ × P Lm | Rm( ) × P Ln | Rn( )
n∈N∏ × ...× P Lo | Ro( )
o∈O∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
FreeX∑
⎡
⎣ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥ ⎥ Free4
∑m∈M∏
⎡
⎣ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥ ⎥ Free3
∑
19
Using cache memory
P Search |Known( ) = 1Z× P Lj | R j( )j∈J∏ × P Lm | Rm( ) × P Ln | Rn( )
n∈N∏ × ...× P Lo | Ro( )
o∈O∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
FreeX∑
⎡
⎣ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥ ⎥ Free4
∑m∈M∏
⎡
⎣ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥ ⎥ Free3
∑
Π
Σ
P1
P2
Π
Σ
Π
P8
P9
Π
Σ
P3 P4
Σ
Σ
P5
P6
P7
Π
20
Using cache memory
P Search |Known( ) = 1Z× P Lj | R j( )j∈J∏ × P Lm | Rm( ) × P Ln | Rn( )
n∈N∏ × ...× P Lo | Ro( )
o∈O∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
FreeX∑
⎡
⎣ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥ ⎥ Free4
∑m∈M∏
⎡
⎣ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥ ⎥ Free3
∑
Π
Σ
P1
P2
Π
Σ
Π
P8
P9
Π
Σ
P3 P4
P10
20
Using cache memory
P Search |Known( ) = 1Z× P Lj | R j( )j∈J∏ × P Lm | Rm( ) × P Ln | Rn( )
n∈N∏ × ...× P Lo | Ro( )
o∈O∏⎡
⎣ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥
FreeX∑
⎡
⎣ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥ ⎥ Free4
∑m∈M∏
⎡
⎣ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦ ⎥ ⎥ Free3
∑
Π
Σ
P1
P2
Π
Σ
Π
P8
P9
P10
P11
20
Incompleteness(1989)
Overview
Probability as an
alternative to Logic
(1991)
Formalism:Bayesian Programming
(1994)
Inference:ProBT®
(1995)
IndustrialApplications:
ProBAYES(2003)
Cognitive models:BIBA, BACS
(2000)
21
BIBA & BACSMain Questions
•How to develop better artifacts using
Bayesian reasoning?
•Biological plausibility of Bayesian
reasoning at a macroscopic level?
•Biological plausibility of Bayesian
reasoning at a microscopic level?
22
Bayesian Robots ProgrammingPhD O. Lebeltel (1999)
[Lebeltel99][Lebeltel04]
Basic Concepts of Bayesian Programming 35
Pro
gra
m
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Des
crip
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Spec
ifica
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Relevant Variables:Dir, Prox, !, V rot, HDecomposition:P (Dir ! Prox ! ! ! V rot ! H | "homing) =
P (Dir ! Prox ! ! | "homing)"P (H | Prox ! "homing)"P (V rot | Dir ! Prox ! ! ! H ! "homing)
Parametric Forms:P (Dir ! Prox ! ! | "homing) # UniformP ([H = avoidance] | Prox ! "homing) = Sigmoid!,"(Prox)P (V rot | Dir ! Prox ! ! ! [H = avoidance] ! "homing)# P (V rot | Dir ! Prox ! "avoidance)P (V rot | Dir ! Prox ! ! ! [H = phototaxy]! "homing)# P (V rot | ! ! Prox ! "phototaxy)
Identification:No learning
Question:P (V rot | dir ! prox ! # ! "homing)
Fig. 11. Homing BP
Dir ! {"10, . . . , 10} #Dir$ = 21Prox ! {0, . . . , 15} #Prox$ = 16! ! {"170, . . . , 180} #!$ = 36V rot ! {"10, . . . , 10} #V rot$ = 21H ! {avoidance, phototaxy} #H$ = 2
(33)
Decomposition: We believe that the sensory variables Dir, Prox and ! areindependent from one another.
Far from any objects, we want the robot to go toward the light. Very closeto obstacles, we want the robot to avoid them. Hence, we consider that Hshould only depend on Prox.
Finally,we believe that Vrot must depend on the other four variables. Theseprogrammer choices lead to the following decomposition:
P (Dir % Prox % ! % V rot % H | "homing)= P (Dir % Prox % ! | "homing)
&P (H | Prox % "homing)&P (V rot | Dir % Prox % ! % H % "homing)
(34)
Parametric forms: We have no a priori information about either the directionand distance of objects or the direction of the light source. Consequently, westate:
P (Dir % Prox % ! | "homing) ' Uniform (35)
H is a command variable to switch from avoidance to phototaxy. Thismeans that when H = avoidance the robot should behave as it learned to do
23
Bayesian Robots ProgrammingPhD O. Lebeltel (1999)
[Lebeltel99][Lebeltel04] 23
Bayesian Robots ProgrammingPhD O. Lebeltel (1999)
[Lebeltel99][Lebeltel04]
Basic Concepts of Bayesian Programming 35
Pro
gra
m
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Des
crip
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Spec
ifica
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Relevant Variables:Dir, Prox, !, V rot, HDecomposition:P (Dir ! Prox ! ! ! V rot ! H | "homing) =
P (Dir ! Prox ! ! | "homing)"P (H | Prox ! "homing)"P (V rot | Dir ! Prox ! ! ! H ! "homing)
Parametric Forms:P (Dir ! Prox ! ! | "homing) # UniformP ([H = avoidance] | Prox ! "homing) = Sigmoid!,"(Prox)P (V rot | Dir ! Prox ! ! ! [H = avoidance] ! "homing)# P (V rot | Dir ! Prox ! "avoidance)P (V rot | Dir ! Prox ! ! ! [H = phototaxy]! "homing)# P (V rot | ! ! Prox ! "phototaxy)
Identification:No learning
Question:P (V rot | dir ! prox ! # ! "homing)
Fig. 11. Homing BP
Dir ! {"10, . . . , 10} #Dir$ = 21Prox ! {0, . . . , 15} #Prox$ = 16! ! {"170, . . . , 180} #!$ = 36V rot ! {"10, . . . , 10} #V rot$ = 21H ! {avoidance, phototaxy} #H$ = 2
(33)
Decomposition: We believe that the sensory variables Dir, Prox and ! areindependent from one another.
Far from any objects, we want the robot to go toward the light. Very closeto obstacles, we want the robot to avoid them. Hence, we consider that Hshould only depend on Prox.
Finally,we believe that Vrot must depend on the other four variables. Theseprogrammer choices lead to the following decomposition:
P (Dir % Prox % ! % V rot % H | "homing)= P (Dir % Prox % ! | "homing)
&P (H | Prox % "homing)&P (V rot | Dir % Prox % ! % H % "homing)
(34)
Parametric forms: We have no a priori information about either the directionand distance of objects or the direction of the light source. Consequently, westate:
P (Dir % Prox % ! | "homing) ' Uniform (35)
H is a command variable to switch from avoidance to phototaxy. Thismeans that when H = avoidance the robot should behave as it learned to do
1 - Calling Bayesian subroutines 2 - Probabilistic if-then-else
24
Mobile Robot NavigationPhD C. Pradalier (2004)
[Pradalier04][Pradalier05] 25
Mobile Robot NavigationPhD C. Pradalier (2004)
[Pradalier04][Pradalier05] 25
Mobile Robot NavigationPhD C. Pradalier (2004)
[Pradalier04][Pradalier05]
3 - Proscriptive programming26
Mobile Robot NavigationPhD C. Pradalier (2004)
[Pradalier04][Pradalier05] 27
Mobile Robot NavigationPhD C. Pradalier (2004)
[Pradalier04][Pradalier05] 27
Training Video-Games AvatarsPhD R. Le Hy (2007)
[LeHy05][LeHy07]
196 Ronan Le Hy and Pierre Bessière
Pro
gra
m
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Des
crip
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Spec
ifica
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Relevant Variables:Bt, Bt!1, Ht, W t, OW t, N t, NOt, WP t and HP t
Decomposition:P (Bt ! Bt!1 ! Ht ! W t ! OW t ! N t ! NOt ! WP t ! HP t) =
P (Bt!1) " P (Bt | Bt!1)"P (Ht | Bt) " P (W t | Bt) " P (OW t | Bt) " P (N t | Bt)"P (NOt | Bt) " P (WP t | Bt) " P (HP t | Bt)
Parametric Forms:P (Bt!1): uniform;All other distributions are tables
Identification:None
Question:P (Bt | bt!1 ! ht ! wt ! owt ! nt ! not ! wpt ! hpt)
Fig. 2. Sequencing Bot’s behaviors by inverse programming
Table 1. P (Ht | Bt)
attack searchweapon searchhealth explore flee detectdangerLow 10!3 10!1 x 10!1 0.7 10!1
Medium 10!1 x 10!2 x 0.2 xHigh x x 10!3 x 0.1 x
(poor) health level, a medium probability (10!1) of having a medium (fair)health level, and a strong probability (0.899 4) of having a high (good) healthlevel.
This form of specification allows us to formalize conveniently the con-straints we want to impose on the behavior, in a condensed format, and sepa-rately on each sensory variable. Indeed, Table 1 formalizes the relation of thebot’s health level to its state: if it starts attacking, then its health is ratherhigh; if it starts searching for a health pack, then its health is almost certainlylow; if it starts fleeing, then its health is probably rather low, but with a highdegree of uncertainty.
All six tables for the other sensory variables are built on similar patterns.
Transition table
P (Bt | Bt!1) is special (see Table 2). It gives some sort of basic transitiontable; i.e. it answers in a probabilistic way the question: knowing nothing butthe current state, what will the next state be?
In the present case, it basically specifies stability: a very high probabilityof continuing with the same behavior and a low one of changing.4 "x" stands for the normalization value of the column. For instance, in this first
column x=0.899
28
Training Video-Games AvatarsPhD R. Le Hy (2007)
[LeHy05][LeHy07]
196 Ronan Le Hy and Pierre Bessière
Pro
gra
m
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Des
crip
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Spec
ifica
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Relevant Variables:Bt, Bt!1, Ht, W t, OW t, N t, NOt, WP t and HP t
Decomposition:P (Bt ! Bt!1 ! Ht ! W t ! OW t ! N t ! NOt ! WP t ! HP t) =
P (Bt!1) " P (Bt | Bt!1)"P (Ht | Bt) " P (W t | Bt) " P (OW t | Bt) " P (N t | Bt)"P (NOt | Bt) " P (WP t | Bt) " P (HP t | Bt)
Parametric Forms:P (Bt!1): uniform;All other distributions are tables
Identification:None
Question:P (Bt | bt!1 ! ht ! wt ! owt ! nt ! not ! wpt ! hpt)
Fig. 2. Sequencing Bot’s behaviors by inverse programming
Table 1. P (Ht | Bt)
attack searchweapon searchhealth explore flee detectdangerLow 10!3 10!1 x 10!1 0.7 10!1
Medium 10!1 x 10!2 x 0.2 xHigh x x 10!3 x 0.1 x
(poor) health level, a medium probability (10!1) of having a medium (fair)health level, and a strong probability (0.899 4) of having a high (good) healthlevel.
This form of specification allows us to formalize conveniently the con-straints we want to impose on the behavior, in a condensed format, and sepa-rately on each sensory variable. Indeed, Table 1 formalizes the relation of thebot’s health level to its state: if it starts attacking, then its health is ratherhigh; if it starts searching for a health pack, then its health is almost certainlylow; if it starts fleeing, then its health is probably rather low, but with a highdegree of uncertainty.
All six tables for the other sensory variables are built on similar patterns.
Transition table
P (Bt | Bt!1) is special (see Table 2). It gives some sort of basic transitiontable; i.e. it answers in a probabilistic way the question: knowing nothing butthe current state, what will the next state be?
In the present case, it basically specifies stability: a very high probabilityof continuing with the same behavior and a low one of changing.4 "x" stands for the normalization value of the column. For instance, in this first
column x=0.899
200 Ronan Le Hy and Pierre Bessière
eight products (see Equation 2). It is linear in both the number of behaviorsto sequence and the number of variables to take into account.
3 Training video game avatars
The next step is to teach the bot a behavior instead of specifying all theprobability distributions by hand.
To do this, the player is placed in the usual interface of the game (seeFigure 3). He or she pilots the bot using the familiar controls: keyboard andmouse. We measure at each instant (every tenth of a second) the sensoryvariables coming from the bots and the commands decided by the player.These sensory inputs and commands are used to learn the values of the tablesthat were fixed manually in the previous section.
After this learning phase we are back to the previous situation and thebot is controlled the exact same manner: answering each tenth of a secondthe question P (Bt | bt!1 ! ht ! wt ! owt ! nt ! not ! wpt ! hpt).
Fig. 3. Game setup !!!Changer l’image!!!
3.1 Bayesian program
Consequently, the Bayesian program did not changed but for the identifica-tion part. The variables are the same, the decomposition is the same, theparametric forms are the same, the question is the same, but, Learning bydemonstration is used to identify the values of the table.
28
Training Video-Games AvatarsPhD R. Le Hy (2007)
[LeHy05][LeHy07]
196 Ronan Le Hy and Pierre Bessière
Pro
gra
m
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Des
crip
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Spec
ifica
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Relevant Variables:Bt, Bt!1, Ht, W t, OW t, N t, NOt, WP t and HP t
Decomposition:P (Bt ! Bt!1 ! Ht ! W t ! OW t ! N t ! NOt ! WP t ! HP t) =
P (Bt!1) " P (Bt | Bt!1)"P (Ht | Bt) " P (W t | Bt) " P (OW t | Bt) " P (N t | Bt)"P (NOt | Bt) " P (WP t | Bt) " P (HP t | Bt)
Parametric Forms:P (Bt!1): uniform;All other distributions are tables
Identification:None
Question:P (Bt | bt!1 ! ht ! wt ! owt ! nt ! not ! wpt ! hpt)
Fig. 2. Sequencing Bot’s behaviors by inverse programming
Table 1. P (Ht | Bt)
attack searchweapon searchhealth explore flee detectdangerLow 10!3 10!1 x 10!1 0.7 10!1
Medium 10!1 x 10!2 x 0.2 xHigh x x 10!3 x 0.1 x
(poor) health level, a medium probability (10!1) of having a medium (fair)health level, and a strong probability (0.899 4) of having a high (good) healthlevel.
This form of specification allows us to formalize conveniently the con-straints we want to impose on the behavior, in a condensed format, and sepa-rately on each sensory variable. Indeed, Table 1 formalizes the relation of thebot’s health level to its state: if it starts attacking, then its health is ratherhigh; if it starts searching for a health pack, then its health is almost certainlylow; if it starts fleeing, then its health is probably rather low, but with a highdegree of uncertainty.
All six tables for the other sensory variables are built on similar patterns.
Transition table
P (Bt | Bt!1) is special (see Table 2). It gives some sort of basic transitiontable; i.e. it answers in a probabilistic way the question: knowing nothing butthe current state, what will the next state be?
In the present case, it basically specifies stability: a very high probabilityof continuing with the same behavior and a low one of changing.4 "x" stands for the normalization value of the column. For instance, in this first
column x=0.899
28
Training Video-Games AvatarsPhD R. Le Hy (2007)
[LeHy05][LeHy07]
196 Ronan Le Hy and Pierre Bessière
Pro
gra
m
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Des
crip
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Spec
ifica
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Relevant Variables:Bt, Bt!1, Ht, W t, OW t, N t, NOt, WP t and HP t
Decomposition:P (Bt ! Bt!1 ! Ht ! W t ! OW t ! N t ! NOt ! WP t ! HP t) =
P (Bt!1) " P (Bt | Bt!1)"P (Ht | Bt) " P (W t | Bt) " P (OW t | Bt) " P (N t | Bt)"P (NOt | Bt) " P (WP t | Bt) " P (HP t | Bt)
Parametric Forms:P (Bt!1): uniform;All other distributions are tables
Identification:None
Question:P (Bt | bt!1 ! ht ! wt ! owt ! nt ! not ! wpt ! hpt)
Fig. 2. Sequencing Bot’s behaviors by inverse programming
Table 1. P (Ht | Bt)
attack searchweapon searchhealth explore flee detectdangerLow 10!3 10!1 x 10!1 0.7 10!1
Medium 10!1 x 10!2 x 0.2 xHigh x x 10!3 x 0.1 x
(poor) health level, a medium probability (10!1) of having a medium (fair)health level, and a strong probability (0.899 4) of having a high (good) healthlevel.
This form of specification allows us to formalize conveniently the con-straints we want to impose on the behavior, in a condensed format, and sepa-rately on each sensory variable. Indeed, Table 1 formalizes the relation of thebot’s health level to its state: if it starts attacking, then its health is ratherhigh; if it starts searching for a health pack, then its health is almost certainlylow; if it starts fleeing, then its health is probably rather low, but with a highdegree of uncertainty.
All six tables for the other sensory variables are built on similar patterns.
Transition table
P (Bt | Bt!1) is special (see Table 2). It gives some sort of basic transitiontable; i.e. it answers in a probabilistic way the question: knowing nothing butthe current state, what will the next state be?
In the present case, it basically specifies stability: a very high probabilityof continuing with the same behavior and a low one of changing.4 "x" stands for the normalization value of the column. For instance, in this first
column x=0.899
4 - Inverse programming29
Bayesian control of robotics armsPhD R. Garcia (2003)
[Garcia03]
Description de l’objetPoints de référence sur les caméras (VS)
Calibration des caméras
Localisation d’un point avec la V.S.
Positions apprises (mixture)
Positions de référence
Positions articulaire et cartésienne
Capteurs d’état
Localisation d’un objet
Gestion d’activitésAction de la pincePosition but correspondant à l’activitéDescription du mouvement du bras
30
Bayesian Approach to Action Selection and Attention focusing
PhD C. Koike (2005)
[Koike05]
Bayesian Approach to Action Selection and Attention Focusing 275
Pro
gra
m
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Des
crip
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Spec
ifica
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Relevant Variables:S0:t
i , Z0:ti , !0:t
i , C0:t, "0:ti , B0:t, #0:t
i , M0:t
Decomposition:P (S0:t
i ! Z0:ti ! C0:t ! !0:t
i ! B0:t ! "0:ti ! M0:t ! #0:t
i |$i) =˛˛˛˛˛˛˛˛˛˛˛˛
Qtj=1
2
66664
P (Sji |S
j!1i M j!1$i)
"P (Zji |S
ji Cj$i)
"P (Cj |$i) " P (!i|CjBjSj
i $i)"P (Bj|$i) " P ("i|B
jSji Bj!1$i)
"P (M j |$i) " P (#i|MjSj
i BjM j!1$i)
3
77775
"P (S0i Z0
i "0i B0#0
i M0|$i).
Parametric Forms:P (Sj
i |Sj!1i M j!1$i) = Dynamic Model
P (Zji |S
ji Cj$i) = Sensor model
P (Cj |$i) = A priori about Attention VariablesP (!i|C
jBjSji $i)Attention model in fusion with coherence form
P (Bj |$i) = A priori about Behaviour variablesP ("i|B
jSji Bj!1$i) = Behaviour model in fusion with coherence form
P (M j |$i) = A priori about motor variablesP (#i|M
jSji BjM j!1$i) = Motor model in fusion with coherence form
P (S0i Z0
i #0i M
0|$i) = Initial ConditionsIdentification:A Priori or Learning Method
Question:P (Sj
i |z0:j!1i m0:j!1 c0:j!1 !0:j!1
i "0:j!1i #0:j!1
i $i) - Prediction of StatesP (Cj |z0:j!1
i m0:j!1 c0:j!1 !0:ji "0:j!1
i #0:j!1i $i) - Determination of Attention
P (Bj |z0:ji m0:j!1 c0:j !0:j
i "0:ji #0:j!1
i $i) - Determination of BehaviourP (Sj
i |z0:ji m0:j!1 c0:j !0:j
i "0:ji #0:j!1
i $i) - Estimation of StatesP (M j |z0:j
i m0:j!1 b0:j c0:j !0:ji "0:j
i #0:ji $i) - Motor Commands
Fig. 9. Elementary Filter with Attention Selection Bayesian Program
processing method to be applied to the raw data and the observation thatresults.
Attention variables Ct are common to all elementary filters, and the atten-tion model is defined by applying coherence-based fusion. A coherence variableset !t is then necessary, one variable in each elementary filter for each variablein Ct .
In the joint distribution shown in figure 9, the first term shows the dynamicmodel, which is unchanged from the Bayes filter in the previous section.
The observation model P (Zji |S
ji Cj"i) in the second line inside the time
product now includes the attention variable.The attention variable is necessary in the sensor model to indicate valid
observations. If observations are valid, the sensor model applies. If an obser-vation is not available, a uniform distribution is used. In other words, it is
31
Bayesian Approach to Action Selection and Attention focusing
PhD C. Koike (2005)
[Koike05]
• Inclusion of intermediary state variables
• Bayesian time filtering
• Motor model addition
• Domains of interest
• Behaviour selection, synergies and strategies
• Reduction of perception data pre-processing
31
86 M.K Tay, K. Mekhnacha, M. Yguel, C. Coué and C. Laugier
Pro
gra
m
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Des
crip
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Spec
ifica
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Relevant Variables:C :an index that identify each 2D cell of the gridA :an index that identify each possible antecedent of the cell
c over all the cells in the 2D gridZt :sensor measurement relative to the cell cV :The set of velocities for the cell c where
V is discretized in n cases; V ! V = {v1, . . . , vn}O, O!1 : Taking values from the set O " {occ, emp}
indicating if the cell c is ‘occupied’ or ‘empty’.O!1 represents the random variable of the state of anantecedent cell of c through the possible motion through c.
Decomposition:P (C A Z O O!1 V ) =
P (A)P (V |A)P (C|V, A)P (O!1|A)P (O|O!1)P (Z|O, V, C)Parametric Forms:P (A): uniform;P (V | A): conditional velocity distribution of antecedent cell;P (C | V A): dirac representing reachability (see 2.3);P (O!1 | A): conditional occupancy distribution of antecdent cell;P (O | O!1): occupancy transitional matrix (see 2.3);P (Z | O V C): observation model;
Identification:None
Question:P (O | Z C)P (V | Z C)
Fig. 5. BOF with Velocity Inference
Parametric Form
Each sub expression of the joint distribution decomposition can be mappedto a semantic. The semantics of each distribution in the decomposition areinterpreted as follows:
• P (A) is the distribution over all the possible antecedent of the cell c. It ischosen to be uniform because the cell is considered reachable from all theantecedents with equal probability.
• P (V |A) is the distribution over all the possible velocities of a certain an-tecedent of the cell c, its parametric form is in the form of a histogram.
• P (C|V, A) is a distribution that explains if c is reachable from [A = a]with the velocity [V = v]. In discrete spaces, this distribution is a diracwith value equal to one if and only if cx = ax + vx!t and cy = ay + vy!twhich follows a dynamic model of constant velocity.
Bayesian Occupancy Filters for ADASPhD C. Coué (2003)
[Coué03][Coué05] 32
Bayesian Occupancy Filters for ADASPhD C. Coué (2003)
[Coué03][Coué05] 32
Bayesian Occupancy Filters for ADASPhD C. Coué (2003)
[Coué03][Coué05] 32
86 M.K Tay, K. Mekhnacha, M. Yguel, C. Coué and C. Laugier
Pro
gra
m
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Des
crip
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Spec
ifica
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Relevant Variables:C :an index that identify each 2D cell of the gridA :an index that identify each possible antecedent of the cell
c over all the cells in the 2D gridZt :sensor measurement relative to the cell cV :The set of velocities for the cell c where
V is discretized in n cases; V ! V = {v1, . . . , vn}O, O!1 : Taking values from the set O " {occ, emp}
indicating if the cell c is ‘occupied’ or ‘empty’.O!1 represents the random variable of the state of anantecedent cell of c through the possible motion through c.
Decomposition:P (C A Z O O!1 V ) =
P (A)P (V |A)P (C|V, A)P (O!1|A)P (O|O!1)P (Z|O, V, C)Parametric Forms:P (A): uniform;P (V | A): conditional velocity distribution of antecedent cell;P (C | V A): dirac representing reachability (see 2.3);P (O!1 | A): conditional occupancy distribution of antecdent cell;P (O | O!1): occupancy transitional matrix (see 2.3);P (Z | O V C): observation model;
Identification:None
Question:P (O | Z C)P (V | Z C)
Fig. 5. BOF with Velocity Inference
Parametric Form
Each sub expression of the joint distribution decomposition can be mappedto a semantic. The semantics of each distribution in the decomposition areinterpreted as follows:
• P (A) is the distribution over all the possible antecedent of the cell c. It ischosen to be uniform because the cell is considered reachable from all theantecedents with equal probability.
• P (V |A) is the distribution over all the possible velocities of a certain an-tecedent of the cell c, its parametric form is in the form of a histogram.
• P (C|V, A) is a distribution that explains if c is reachable from [A = a]with the velocity [V = v]. In discrete spaces, this distribution is a diracwith value equal to one if and only if cx = ax + vx!t and cy = ay + vy!twhich follows a dynamic model of constant velocity.
Bayesian Occupancy Filters for ADASPhD C. Coué (2003)
[Coué03][Coué05] 33
5 - Time vs Space dependencies
Early development of speech:Orofacial imitation
PhD S. Serkhane (2005)
[Serkhane05a][Serkhane05b]
Building a Talking Baby Robot 359
Pro
gra
m
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Des
crip
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Spec
ifica
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Relevant Variables:Lh, Tb, Td, Xh, Y h, Al, F1 and F2
Decomposition:P (Lh ! Tb ! Td ! Xh ! Y h ! Al ! F1 ! F2) =
P (Xh) " P (Y h) " P (Al)"P (Lh | Al) " P (Tb | Xh ! Y h) " P (Td | Xh ! Y h ! Tb)"P (F1 | Xh ! Y h ! Al) " P (F2 | Xh ! Y h ! Al)
Parametric Forms:P (Xh) # UniformP (Y h) # UniformP (Al) # UniformP (Lh | Al) # G(µ(Al), !(Al))P (Tb | Xh ! Y h) # G(µ(Xh, Y h), !(Xh, Y h))P (Td | Xh ! Y h ! Tb) # G(µ(Xh, Y h, T b),!(Xh, Y h, T b))P (F1 | Xh ! Y h ! Al) # G(µ(Xh, Y h, Al), !(Xh, Y h, Al))P (F2 | Xh ! Y h ! Al) # G(µ(Xh, Y h, Al), !(Xh, Y h, Al))
Identification:See text (Sections 4.3, 4.5 and 4.6)
Question:P (Lh ! Tb ! Td | f1 ! f2) or P (Lh ! Tb ! Td | f1 ! f2 ! al)
Fig. 13. Talking baby robot Bayesian model
system of reference. As mentioned in section 2.2, Xh and Y h are potentialoutputs of the somesthetic system and Al can be either a somatosensory ora visual variable (depending on whether this piece of information comes fromself or the other).
The variables Lh, Tb, Td, F1 and F2 are discretized with 16 values each.Their ranges have been fixed according to the findings of the di!erent framingsdescribed above.
The variables Xh, Y h and Al are also discrete. We explore di!erent dis-cretization for them: {16, 16, 8}, {8, 8, 4}, {4, 4, 2} and {2, 2, 1}. Thesedi!erent choices will be discuss in details in the sequel.
Decomposition
The three variables Xh, Y h and Al which characterize the geometric shapeof the vocal duct are selected as pivots of the decomposition. Indeed, knowingthe shape of the vocal duct it is possible to independently deduce, on onehand, the produce sound (F1 and F2) and, on the other hand, independently,the motor commands (Lh, Tb and Td). The corresponding formal hypothesesare the following:
1. The three geometric variables Xh, Y h and Al are independent of oneanother when nothing is known about either the produce sound or themotor commands.
34
Early development of speech:Orofacial imitation
PhD S. Serkhane (2005)
[Serkhane05a][Serkhane05b] 34
Early development of speech:Orofacial imitation
PhD S. Serkhane (2005)
[Serkhane05a][Serkhane05b] 34
Early development of speech:Orofacial imitation
PhD S. Serkhane (2005)
[Serkhane05a][Serkhane05b]
Building a Talking Baby Robot 359
Pro
gra
m
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Des
crip
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Spec
ifica
tion
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
Relevant Variables:Lh, Tb, Td, Xh, Y h, Al, F1 and F2
Decomposition:P (Lh ! Tb ! Td ! Xh ! Y h ! Al ! F1 ! F2) =
P (Xh) " P (Y h) " P (Al)"P (Lh | Al) " P (Tb | Xh ! Y h) " P (Td | Xh ! Y h ! Tb)"P (F1 | Xh ! Y h ! Al) " P (F2 | Xh ! Y h ! Al)
Parametric Forms:P (Xh) # UniformP (Y h) # UniformP (Al) # UniformP (Lh | Al) # G(µ(Al), !(Al))P (Tb | Xh ! Y h) # G(µ(Xh, Y h), !(Xh, Y h))P (Td | Xh ! Y h ! Tb) # G(µ(Xh, Y h, T b),!(Xh, Y h, T b))P (F1 | Xh ! Y h ! Al) # G(µ(Xh, Y h, Al), !(Xh, Y h, Al))P (F2 | Xh ! Y h ! Al) # G(µ(Xh, Y h, Al), !(Xh, Y h, Al))
Identification:See text (Sections 4.3, 4.5 and 4.6)
Question:P (Lh ! Tb ! Td | f1 ! f2) or P (Lh ! Tb ! Td | f1 ! f2 ! al)
Fig. 13. Talking baby robot Bayesian model
system of reference. As mentioned in section 2.2, Xh and Y h are potentialoutputs of the somesthetic system and Al can be either a somatosensory ora visual variable (depending on whether this piece of information comes fromself or the other).
The variables Lh, Tb, Td, F1 and F2 are discretized with 16 values each.Their ranges have been fixed according to the findings of the di!erent framingsdescribed above.
The variables Xh, Y h and Al are also discrete. We explore di!erent dis-cretization for them: {16, 16, 8}, {8, 8, 4}, {4, 4, 2} and {2, 2, 1}. Thesedi!erent choices will be discuss in details in the sequel.
Decomposition
The three variables Xh, Y h and Al which characterize the geometric shapeof the vocal duct are selected as pivots of the decomposition. Indeed, knowingthe shape of the vocal duct it is possible to independently deduce, on onehand, the produce sound (F1 and F2) and, on the other hand, independently,the motor commands (Lh, Tb and Td). The corresponding formal hypothesesare the following:
1. The three geometric variables Xh, Y h and Al are independent of oneanother when nothing is known about either the produce sound or themotor commands.
6 - Simplification using intermediary variables35
Shape From MovementPhD F. Colas (2006)
[Colas06][Colas07]
Courtesy of Max Plant Institute
36
Shape From MovementPhD F. Colas (2006)
[Colas06][Colas07]
7 - Expressing psychological priors37
Incompleteness(1989)
Perspectives
Probability as an
alternative to Logic
(1991)
Formalism:Bayesian Programming
(1994)
Inference:ProBT®
(1995)
IndustrialApplications:
ProBAYES(2003)
Cognitive models:BIBA, BACS
(2000)
BayesianNeuron
38
Probabilistic inference by the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction
39
Courtesy of A. Houillon, LPPA, Collège de France
Probabilistic inference by the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction
39
Activation ofPhosphodiastrase
Courtesy of A. Houillon, LPPA, Collège de France
Probabilistic inference by the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction
39
Activation ofPhosphodiastrase
Hydrolysis ofcGMP
Courtesy of A. Houillon, LPPA, Collège de France
Probabilistic inference by the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction
39
Activation ofPhosphodiastrase
Hydrolysis ofcGMP
Closure of Ca++ion channels
Courtesy of A. Houillon, LPPA, Collège de France
Probabilistic inference by the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction
39
Activation ofPhosphodiastrase
Hydrolysis ofcGMP
Closure of Ca++ion channels
Decrease of Ca++concentration
Courtesy of A. Houillon, LPPA, Collège de France
Probabilistic inference by the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction
39
Activation ofPhosphodiastrase
Hydrolysis ofcGMP
Closure of Ca++ion channels
Decrease of Ca++concentration
AMPLIFICATIONHyperpolarization of the Membrane
Courtesy of A. Houillon, LPPA, Collège de France
Probabilistic inference by the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction
39
Activation ofPhosphodiastrase
Hydrolysis ofcGMP
Closure of Ca++ion channels
Decrease of Ca++concentration
Ca++ regulatesActivation of GC
AMPLIFICATIONHyperpolarization of the Membrane
Courtesy of A. Houillon, LPPA, Collège de France
Probabilistic inference by the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction
39
Activation ofPhosphodiastrase
Hydrolysis ofcGMP
Closure of Ca++ion channels
Decrease of Ca++concentration
Ca++ regulatesActivation of GC
GC catalyses production of cGMP
AMPLIFICATIONHyperpolarization of the Membrane
Courtesy of A. Houillon, LPPA, Collège de France
Probabilistic inference by the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction
39
Activation ofPhosphodiastrase
Hydrolysis ofcGMP
Closure of Ca++ion channels
Decrease of Ca++concentration
Ca++ regulatesActivation of GC
GC catalyses production of cGMP
AMPLIFICATIONHyperpolarization of the Membrane
Courtesy of A. Houillon, LPPA, Collège de France
Biochemical – Probability equivalence
40
Biochemical – Probability equivalence
Biochemistry
40
Biochemical – Probability equivalence
Biochemistry
40
Biochemical – Probability equivalence
Biochemistry Probability
40
Biochemical – Probability equivalence
�
⇔
Biochemistry Probability
40
Biochemical – Probability equivalence
41
Incompleteness(1989)
Overview
Probability as an
alternative to Logic
(1991)
Formalism:Bayesian Programming
(1994)
Inference:ProBT®
(1995)
IndustrialApplications:
ProBAYES(2003)
Cognitive models:BIBA, BACS
(2000)
42
Want to know more?
Bayesian-Programming.org
Bayesian ProgrammingUnfinished Draft
43