2
$\begingroup$

The question is about the following slides: enter image description here

I have confusion regarding the second and the third statements. Regarding the second statement ("If I not observed nor is anything else"). Here, we get the probability of I given S, then we can get the probability of G given I and finally we can get the probability of D given G. Why is the flow not allowed then. What's the flaw with this argument? Regarding the third one (I not observed, G is observed): I don't even know how to comprehend this. Can someone explain?

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $S$ tells you something about $I$, but $I$ and $D$ are independent so knowing $I$ does not tell you anything about $D$ unless you also know $G$. The flaw in your argument is that you assume you can get $G$ given $I$. You cannot, because $G$ is also influenced by $D$. The third one is where you observe $G$, so now you can use that additional knowledge to infer $D$ from $S$. $\endgroup$ – Moss Murderer Jan 18 '18 at 21:49
1
$\begingroup$

The best strategy is to first write the factorized form of the graphical model: $$ P(D, G, L, I, S) = P(D)P(I)P(G|D,I)P(L|G)P(S|I) $$

Now, you wonder why it is not allowed to move all the way from S to D. Using the Bayes theorem: $$ P(D|S) = \frac{\sum_{G,I,L} P(D,G,L,I,S)}{P(S)} = \\ \frac{P(D)}{P(S)}\sum_{G,I} P(I)P(G|D,I)P(S|I) = \\ \frac{P(D)}{P(S)}\sum_{I} P(I)P(S|I) = \\ \frac{P(D)}{P(S)}P(S) = P(D) $$ that is, they are independent. If G is known, then it all changes, since then you cannot factor it out anymore (you would not have the sum over G).

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.