Abstract
A Bayesian network is a promising probabilistic model to represent causal relations between nodes (random variables). One of the major research issue in a Bayesian network is how to infer causal relations from a dataset by constructing better heuristic learning algorithms. Many kinds of approaches were so far introduced, and estimation of distribution algorithms (EDAs) are one of the promising causal discovery algorithms. However, the performance of EDAs is considerably dependent on the quality of the first population because new individuals are reproduced from the previous populations. In this paper, we introduce a new initialization method for EDAs that extracts promising candidate causal relations based on causal scores. Then, we used the promising relations to construct a better first population and to reproduce better individuals until the learning algorithm is terminated. Experimental results show that EDAs infer a more number of correct causal relations when promising relations were used in EDA based structure learning. It means that the performance of EDAs can be improved by providing better local search space, and it was the promising relations in this paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armañanzas, R., Inza, I., Santana, R., Saeys, Y., Flores, J. L., Lozano, J. A., et al. (2008). A review of estimation of distribution algorithms in bioinformatics. BioData Mining, 1(6), 1–12.
Baluja, S. (1994). Population-based incremental learning. A method for integrating genetic search based function optimization and competitive learning. Technical report, DTIC Document.
Baluja, S., & Davies, S. (1997). Using optimal dependency-trees for combinatorial optimization: Learning the structure of the search space. Technical report, DTIC Document.
Blanco, R., Inza, I., & Larranaga, P. (2003). Learning bayesian networks in the space of structures by estimation of distribution algorithms. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18(2), 205–220.
Butz, C. J., Hua, S., Chen, J., & Yao, H. (2009). A simple graphical approach for understanding probabilistic inference in bayesian networks. Information Sciences, 179(6), 699–716.
Chickering, D. M. (2002). Learning equivalence classes of bayesian-network structures. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2, 445–498.
Daly, R., Shen, Q., & Aitken, S. (2011). Learning bayesian networks: Approaches and issues. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(02), 99–157.
De Bonet, J. S., Isbell, C. L., & Viola, P. (1997). Mimic: Finding optima by estimating probability densities. In M. Mozer et al. (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 9, pp. 424–430).
Ding, C., & Peng, W. (2014). A robust and efficient evolutionary algorithm based on probabilistic model. Journal of Computers, 9(6), 1462–1469.
Etxeberria, R., & Larranaga, P. (1999). Global optimization using bayesian networks. In Second symposium on artificial intelligence (CIMAF-99) (pp. 332–339). Habana, Cuba.
Handa, H. (2005). Estimation of distribution algorithms with mutation. In G. R. Raidl & J. Gottlieb (Eds.), Evolutionary computation in combinatorial optimization (pp. 112–121). Berlin: Springer.
Harik, G. R., Lobo, F. G., & Goldberg, D. E. (1999). The compact genetic algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 3(4), 287–297.
Ko, S., & Kim, D.-W. (2014). An efficient node ordering method using the conditional frequency for the k2 algorithm. Pattern Recognition Letters, 40, 80–87.
Larranaga, P., & Lozano, J. A. (2002). Estimation of distribution algorithms: A new tool for evolutionary computation (Vol. 2). Berlin: Springer.
Li, Z., Li, P., Krishnan, A., & Liu, J. (2011). Large-scale dynamic gene regulatory network inference combining differential equation models with local dynamic bayesian network analysis. Bioinformatics, 27(19), 2686–2691.
Mühlenbein, H., & Paass, G. (1996). From recombination of genes to the estimation of distributions in. binary parameters. In W. Ebeling, I. Rechenberg, H.-P. Schwefel & H.-M. Voigt (Eds.), Parallel problem solving from naturePPSN IV (pp. 178–187). Berlin: Springer.
Neapolitan, R. E. (2004). Learning bayesian networks. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Pearl, J. (2014). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.
Pelikan, M., & Mühlenbein, H. (1999). The bivariate marginal distribution algorithm. In R. Roy, T. Furuhashi & P. K. Chawdhry (Eds.), Advances in soft computing (pp. 521–535). London: Springer.
Pelikan, M., & Sastry, K. (2009). Initial-population bias in the univariate estimation of distribution algorithm. In Proceedings of the 11th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation (pp. 429–436). ACM.
Pelikan, M. (2005). Hierarchical Bayesian optimization algorithm. Berlin: Springer.
Pelikan, M., Goldberg, D. E., & Cantu-Paz, E. (2000). Linkage problem, distribution estimation, and bayesian networks. Evolutionary Computation, 8(3), 311–340.
Pelikan, M., Goldberg, D. E., & Lobo, F. G. (2002). A survey of optimization by building and using probabilistic models. Computational Optimization and Applications, 21(1), 5–20.
Romero, T., Larrañaga, P., & Sierra, B. (2004). Learning bayesian networks in the space of orderings with estimation of distribution algorithms. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 18(04), 607–625.
Santana, R., Armañanzas, R., Bielza, C., & Larrañaga, P. (2013). Network measures for information extraction in evolutionary algorithms. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 6(6), 1163–1188.
Yang, S., & Chang, K.-C. (2002). Comparison of score metrics for bayesian network learning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 32(3), 419–428.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2014R1A6A3A01058174) and by Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST) and Korea Creative Content Agency (KOCCA) in the Culture Technology (CT) Research & Development Program 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ko, S., Lim, H., Ko, H. et al. Experimental comparisons with respect to the usage of the promising relations in EDA-based causal discovery. Ann Oper Res 265, 241–255 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2390-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2390-2