Temporally invariant junction tree for inference in dynamic bayesian network

  • Y. Xiang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1418)


Dynamic Bayesian networks (DBNs) extend Bayesian networks from static domains to dynamic domains. The only known generic method for exact inference in DBNs is based on dynamic expansion and reduction of active slices. It is effective when the domain evolves relatively slowly, but is reported to be “too expensive” for fast evolving domain where inference is under time pressure.

This study explores the stationary feature of problem domains to improve the efficiency of exact inference in DBNs. We propose the construction of a temporally invariant template of a DBN directly supporting exact inference and discuss issues in the construction. This method eliminates the need for the computation associated with dynamic expansion and reduction of the existing method. The method is demonstrated by experimental result.


probabilistic reasoning temporal reasoning knowledge representation dynamic Bayesian networks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Andreassen, R. Hovorka, J. Benn, K.G. Olesen, and E.R. Carson. A model-based approach to insulin adjustment. In Proc. 3rd Conf. on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, pages 239–248. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G.F. Cooper. The computational complexity of probabilistic inference using Bayesian belief networks. Artificial Intelligence, 42(2–3):393–405, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Dagum, A. Galper, and E. Horvitz. Dynamic network models for forecasting. In D. Dubois, M.P. Wellman, B. D'Ambrosio, and P. Smets, editors, Proc. 8th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 41–48, Stanford, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Dagum and M. Luby. Approximating probabilistic inference in Bayesian belief networks is NP-hard. Artificial Intelligence, 60(1):141–153, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    T.L. Dean and K. Kanazawa. A model for reasoning about persistence and causation. Computational Intelligence, (5):142–150, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T.L. Dean and M.P. Wellman. Planning and Control. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Forbes, T. Huang, K. Kanazawa, and S. Russell. The batmobile: towards a bayesian automated taxi. In Proc. Fourteenth International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1878–1885, Montreal, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F.V. Jensen, S.L. Lauritzen, and K.G. Olesen. Bayesian updating in causal probabilistic networks by local computations. Computational Statistics Quarterly, (4):269–282, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U. Kjaerulff. A computational scheme for reasoning in dynamic probabilistic networks. In D. Dubois, M.P. Wellman, B. D'Ambrosio, and P. Smets, editors, Proc. 8th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 121–129, Stanford, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Pearl. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.J. Rose, R.E. Tarjan, and G.S. Lueker. Algorithmic aspects of vertex elimination on graphs. SIAM J. Computing, 5:266–283, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    W.X. Wen. Optimal decomposition of belief networks. In Proc. 6th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 245–256, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Y. Xiang, D. Poole, and M. P. Beddoes. Multiply sectioned Bayesian networks and junction forests for large knowledge based systems. Computational Intelligence, 9(2):171–220, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. Xiang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada

Personalised recommendations