Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-v47t2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-16T21:33:21.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disintegration and Bayesian inversion via string diagrams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2019

Kenta Cho Open the ORCID record for Kenta Cho [Opens in a new window]  and
Bart Jacobs
Kenta Cho*
Affiliation:
Information Systems Architecture Science Research Division, National Institute of Informatics, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8430, Japan
Bart Jacobs
Affiliation:
Digital Security Group, Institute for Computing and Information Sciences, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author. Email: cho@nii.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The notions of disintegration and Bayesian inversion are fundamental in conditional probability theory. They produce channels, as conditional probabilities, from a joint state, or from an already given channel (in opposite direction). These notions exist in the literature, in concrete situations, but are presented here in abstract graphical formulations. The resulting abstract descriptions are used for proving basic results in conditional probability theory. The existence of disintegration and Bayesian inversion is discussed for discrete probability, and also for measure-theoretic probability – via standard Borel spaces and via likelihoods. Finally, the usefulness of disintegration and Bayesian inversion is illustrated in several examples.

Keywords

Conditional probabilitydisintegrationBayesian inversionstring diagrammonoidal category
Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 29 , Issue 7 , August 2019 , pp. 938 - 971
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abramsky, S. and Coecke, B. (2009). Categorical quantum mechanics. In: Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures: Quantum Logic, Elsevier, 261–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, N. L., Freer, C. E. and Roy, D. M. (2011). Noncomputable conditional distributions. In: Logic in Computer Science, IEEE, 107–116.Google Scholar
Barber, D. (2012). Bayesian Reasoning and Machine Learning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bernardo, J. and Smith, A. (2000). Bayesian Theory, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Borgström, J., Gordon, A., Greenberg, M., Margetson, J. and Gael, J. V. (2013). Measure transformer semantics for Bayesian machine learning. Logical Methods in Computer Science 9 (3) 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, J. T. and Pollard, D. (1997). Conditioning as disintegration. Statistica Neerlandica 51 (3) 287–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, K. and Jacobs, B. (2017). The EfProb library for probabilistic calculations. In: Conference on Algebra and Coalgebra in Computer Science, LIPIcs, vol. 72, Schloss Dagstuhl.Google Scholar
Cho, K., Jacobs, B., Westerbaan, A. and Westerbaan, B. (2015). An introduction to effectus theory. Preprint arXiv:1512.05813 [cs.LO].Google Scholar
Clerc, F., Danos, V., Dahlqvist, F. and Garnier, I. (2017). Pointless learning. In: Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10203, Springer, 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coecke, B. (2016). Terminality implies no-signalling …and much more than that. New Generation Computing 34 (1) 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coecke, B. and Kissinger, A. (2017). Picturing Quantum Processes: A First Course in Quantum Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coumans, D. and Jacobs, B. (2013). Scalars, monads and categories. In: Heunen, C., Sadrzadeh, M. and Grefenstette, E. (eds.) Quantum Physics and Linguistics. A Compositional, Diagrammatic Discourse, Oxford University Press, 184–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J. and Sturtz, K. (2014). A categorical foundation for Bayesian probability. Applied Categorical Structures 22 (4) 647–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Ariano, G. M., Chiribella, G. and Perinotti, P. (2017). Quantum Theory from First Principles: An Informational Approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawid, A. (2001). Separoids: a mathematical framework for conditional independence and irrelevance. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 32 (1) 335–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doberkat, E.-E. (2007). Stochastic Relations: Foundations for Markov Transition Systems, Boca Raton, FL, Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faden, A. M. (1985). The existence of regular conditional probabilities: necessary and sufficient conditions. The Annals of Probability 13 (1) 288–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, B. (2012). Causal Theories: Categorical Perspective on Bayesian Networks. Master’s thesis, University of Oxford. arXiv:1301.6201 [math.PR].Google Scholar
Fremlin, D. H. (2000). Measure Theory, 5 volumes, Colchester, Torres Fremlin.Google Scholar
Geiger, D., Verma, T. and Pearl, J. (1990). Identifying independence in Bayesian networks. Networks 20 507–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giry, M. (1982). A categorical approach to probability theory. In: Categorical Aspects of Topology and Analysis, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 915, Springer, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, A., Henzinger, T., Nori, A. and Rajamani, S. (2014). Probabilistic programming. In: Future of Software Engineering, ACM, 167–181.Google Scholar
Jacobs, B. (2015). New directions in categorical logic, for classical, probabilistic and quantum logic. Logical Methods in Computer Science 11 (3) 1–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, B. (2018). From probability monads to commutative effectuses. Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming, 94 200–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, B., Westerbaan, B. and Westerbaan, A. (2015). States of convex sets. In: Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9034, Springer, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, B. and Zanasi, F. (2016). A predicate/state transformer semantics for Bayesian learning. In: Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 325, Elsevier, 185–200.Google Scholar
Jacobs, B. and Zanasi, F. (2017). A formal semantics of influence in Bayesian reasoning. In: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, LIPIcs, vol. 83, Schloss Dagstuhl.Google Scholar
Jacobs, B. and Zanasi, F. (2018). The logical essentials of Bayesian reasoning. Preprint, arXiv:1804.01193 [cs.AI].Google Scholar
Joyal, A. and Street, R. (1991). The geometry of tensor calculus, I. Advances in Mathematics 88 (1) 55–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallenberg, O. (2017). Random Measures, Theory and Applications, Cham, Switzerland, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katoen, J.-P., Gretz, F., Jansen, N., Lucien Kaminski, B. and Olmedo, F. (2015). Understanding probabilistic programs. In: Correct System Design, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9360, Springer, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1998). Categories for the Working Mathematician, 2nd ed., New York, Springer.Google Scholar
Pachl, J. K. (1978). Disintegration and compact measures. Mathematica Scandinavica 43 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panangaden, P. (2009). Labelled Markov Processes, London, Imperial College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawitan, Y. (2001). In All Likelihood. Statistical Modelling and Inference Using Likelihood, Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems, San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Pollard, D. (2002). A User’s Guide to Measure Theoretic Probability, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Selinger, P. (2010). A survey of graphical languages for monoidal categories. In: New Structures for Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 813, Springer, 289–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shan, C.-c. andRamsey, N. (2017). Exact Bayesian inference by symbolic disintegration. In: Principles of Programming Languages, ACM, 130–144.Google Scholar
Simpson, A. (2018). Category-theoretic structure for independence and conditional independence. In: Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 336, Elsevier, 281–297.Google Scholar
Staton, S. (2017). Commutative semantics for probabilistic programming. In: European Symposium on Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10201, Springer, 855–879.Google Scholar
Staton, S., Yang, H., Heunen, C., Kammar, O. and Wood, F. (2016). Semantics for probabilistic programming: higher-order functions, continuous distributions, and soft constraints. In: Logic in Computer Science, ACM, 525–534.Google Scholar
Stoyanov, J. M. (2014). Counterexamples in Probability, 3rd ed., New York, Dover.Google Scholar
Verma, T. and Pearl, J. (1988). Causal networks: semantics and expressiveness. In: Fourth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 352–359.Google Scholar
Witten, I., Frank, E. and Hall, M. (2011). Data Mining– Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar