Advertisement

Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 917–943 | Cite as

Active inference for dynamic Bayesian networks with an application to tissue engineering

  • Caner Komurlu
  • Jinjian Shao
  • Banu Akar
  • Elif S. Bayrak
  • Eric M. Brey
  • Ali Cinar
  • Mustafa BilgicEmail author
Regular Paper

Abstract

In temporal domains, agents need to actively gather information to make more informed decisions about both the present and the future. When such a domain is modeled as a temporal graphical model, what the agent observes can be incorporated into the model by setting the respective random variables as evidence. Motivated by a tissue engineering application where the experimenter needs to decide how early a laboratory experiment can be stopped so that its possible future outcomes can be predicted within an acceptable uncertainty, we first present a dynamic Bayesian network (DBN) model of vascularization in engineered tissues and compare it with both real-world experimental data and agent-based simulations. We then formulate the question of “how early an experiment can be stopped to guarantee an acceptable uncertainty about the final expected outcome” as an active inference problem for DBNs and empirically and analytically evaluate several search algorithms that aim to find the ideal time to stop a tissue engineering laboratory experiment.

Keywords

Active inference Dynamic Bayesian networks Tissue engineering Vascularization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. IIS-1125412.

References

  1. 1.
    Akar B, Jiang B, Somo SI, Appel AA, Larson JC, Tichauer KM, Brey EM (2015) Biomaterials with persistent growth factor gradients in vivo accelerate vascularized tissue formation. Biomaterials 72:61–73Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artel A, Mehdizadeh H, Chiu Y-C, Brey EM, Cinar A (2011) An agent-based model for the investigation of neovascularization within porous scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A 17(17–18):2133–2141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Attenberg J, Melville P, Provost F (2010) A unified approach to active dual supervision for labeling features and examples. In: Proceedings of the european conference on machine learning (ECML), pp 40–55Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey AM, Thorne BC, Peirce SM (2007) Multi-cell agent-based simulation of the microvasculature to study the dynamics of circulating inflammatory cell trafficking. J Biomed Eng Soc 35(6):916–936Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bentley K, Gerhardt H, Bates PA (2008) Agent-based simulation of notch-mediated tip cell selection in angiogenic sprout initialisation. J Theor Biol 250(1):25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bianco P, Robey PG (2001) Stem cells in tissue engineering. Nature 414(6859):118–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bilgic M (2012) Combining active learning and dynamic dimensionality reduction. In: Proceedings of the SIAM international conference on data mining (SDM)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bilgic M, Getoor L (2009) Reflect and correct: a misclassification prediction approach to active inference. ACM Trans Knowl Discov Data 3(4):1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bilgic M, Getoor L (2010) Active inference for collective classification. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI NECTAR Track), pp 1652–1655Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bilgic M, Getoor L (2011) Value of information lattice: exploiting probabilistic independence for effective feature subset acquisition. J Artif Intell Res (JAIR) 41:69–95zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bromley J, Jackson NA, Clymer OJ, Giacomello AM, Jensen FV (2005) The use of Hugin to develop Bayesian networks as an aid to integrated water resource planning. Environ Model Softw 20(2):231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Byrne DP, Lacroix D, Planell JA, Kelly DJ, Prendergast PJ (2007) Simulation of tissue differentiation in a scaffold as a function of porosity, young’s modulus and dissolution rate: application of mechanobiological models in tissue engineering. Biomaterials 28(36):5544–5554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chapelle O, Zhang Y (2009) A dynamic Bayesian network click model for web search ranking. In: Proceedings of the international conference on world wide web (WWW), pp 1–10Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen D, Bilgic M, Getoor L, Jacobs D (2011) Dynamic processing allocation in video. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 33:2174–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen D, Bilgic M, Getoor L, Jacobs D, Mihalkova L, Yeh T (2011) Active inference for retrieval in camera networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE workshop on person oriented visionGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chiu Y-C, Cheng M-H, Engel H, Kao S-W, Larson JC, Gupta S, Brey EM (2011) The role of pore size on vascularization and tissue remodeling in PEG hydrogels. Biomaterials 32(26):6045–6051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chiu Y-C, Kocagoz S, Larson JC, Brey EM (2013) Evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of porous poly (ethylene glycol)-co-(l-lactic acid) hydrogels during degradation. PLoS One 8:4Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dagan I, Engelson SP (1995) Committee-based sampling for training probabilistic classifiers. In: Proceedings of the international conference on machine learning (ICML), pp 150–157Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Druck G, Settles B, McCallum A (2009) Active learning by labeling features. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pp 81–90Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Forbes J, Huang T, Kanazawa K, Russell S (1995) The BATmobile: towards a Bayesian automated taxi. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), pp 1878–1885Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Husmeier D (2003) Sensitivity and specificity of inferring genetic regulatory interactions from microarray experiments with dynamic Bayesian networks. Bioinformatics 19(17):2271–2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jiang B, Akar B, Waller T, Larson J, Appel A, Brey E (2014) Design of a composite biomaterial system for tissue engineering applications. Acta Biomater 10(3):1177–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jiang B, Waller TM, Larson JC, Appel AA, Brey EM (2013) Fibrin-loaded porous poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogels as scaffold materials for vascularized tissue formation. Tissue Eng Part A 19:224–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koller D, Friedman N (2009) Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques. The MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Komurlu C, Bilgic M (2016) Active inference and dynamic gaussian Bayesian networks for battery optimization in wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of AAAI workshop on artificial intelligence for smart grids and smart buildingsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Komurlu C, Shao J, Bilgic M (2014) Dynamic Bayesian network modeling of vascularization in engineered tissues. In: Proceedings of the eleventh UAI Bayesian modeling applications workshopGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krause A, Guestrin C (2009) Optimal value of information in graphical models. J Artif Intell Res 35:557–591MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Langer R, Vacanti J (1993) Tissue engineering. Science 260(5110):920–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lewis DD, Gale WA (1994) A sequential algorithm for training text classifiers. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval’, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li W-J, Tuli R, Okafor C, Derfoul A, Danielson KG, Hall DJ, Tuan RS (2005) A three-dimensional nanofibrous scaffold for cartilage tissue engineering using human mesenchymal stem cells. Biomaterials 26(6):599–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mao J, Giannobile W, Helms J, Hollister S, Krebsbach P, Longaker M, Shi S (2006) Craniofacial tissue engineering by stem cells. J Dent Res 85(11):966–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mehdizadeh H, Artel A, Brey EM, Cinar A (2011) Multi-agent systems for biomedical simulation: modeling vascularization of porous scaffolds. In: Proceedings of the international conference on agents in principle, agents in practice, pp 113–128Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mehdizadeh H, Sumo S, Bayrak ES, Brey EM, Cinar A (2013) Three-dimensional modeling of angiogenesis in porous biomaterial scaffolds. Biomaterials 34(12):2875–2887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Melville P, Sindhwani V (2009) Active dual supervision: reducing the cost of annotating examples and features. In: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT workshop on active learning for natural language processing, pp 49–57Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Min Z, Conzen SD (2005) A new dynamic Bayesian network (DBN) approach for identifying gene regulatory networks from time course microarray data. Bioinformatics 21(1):71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pavlović V, Rehg JM, Cham T-J, Murphy KP (1999) A dynamic Bayesian network approach to figure tracking using learned dynamic models, In: The proceedings of the seventh IEEE international conference on computer vision, 1999, vol 1, pp 94–101Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Perrin BE, Ralaivola L, Mazurie A, Bottani S, Mallet J, d’Alche Buc F (2003) Gene networks inference using dynamic Bayesian networks. Bioinformatics 19(suppl 2):ii138–ii148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Raghavan H, Allan J (2007) An interactive algorithm for asking and incorporating feature feedback into support vector machines. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, pp 79–86Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ramirez-Loaiza ME, Culotta A, Bilgic M (2013) Towards anytime active learning: interrupting experts to reduce annotation costs. In: Proceedings of the IDEA workshop at ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data miningGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ramirez-Loaiza ME, Culotta A, Bilgic M (2014) Anytime active learning. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roy N, McCallum A (2001) Toward optimal active learning through sampling estimation of error reduction. In: Proceedings of the international conference on machine learning (ICML), pp 441–448Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Settles B (2012) Active learning. Synth Lect Artif Intell MachLearn 6(1):1–114Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Settles B, Craven M (2008) An analysis of active learning strategies for sequence labeling tasks. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 1070–1079Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Seung HS, Opper M, Sompolinsky H (1992) Query by committee. In: Proceedings of the conference on learning theory (COLT), pp 287–294Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sharma M, Bilgic M (2013) Most-surely vs. least-surely uncertain. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sharma M, Bilgic M (2016) Evidence-based uncertainty sampling for active learning. Data Min Knowl Disc. doi: 10.1007/s10618-016-0460-3
  47. 47.
    Sharma M, Zhuang D, Bilgic M (2015) Active learning with rationales for text classification. In: Proceedings of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics—human language technologiesGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Small K, Wallace BC, Brodley CE, Trikalinos TA (2011) The constrained weight space svm: learning with ranked features. In: Proceedings of the international conference on machine learning (ICML), pp 865–872Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Somo SI, Akar B, Bayrak ES, Larson JC, Appel AA, Mehdizadeh H, Cinar A, Brey EM (2015) Pore interconnectivity influences growth factor-mediated vascularization in sphere-templated hydrogels. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 21(8):773–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Uusitalo L (2007) Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecol Modell 3(203):312–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yang S, Leong K-F, Du Z, Chua C-K (2004) The design of scaffolds for use in tissue engineering. Part I. Traditional factors. Tissue Eng 7:679–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zaidan OF, Eisner J, Piatko CD (2007) Using annotator rationales to improve machine learning for text categorization. In: Proceedings of the conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics—human language technologies, pp 260–267Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zweig G, Russell S (1998) Speech recognition with dynamic Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence/innovative applications of artificial intelligence, pp 173–180Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Chemical and Biological EngineeringIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations