mirror of
https://github.com/asimonson1125/Implementations-of-Probability-Theory.git
synced 2026-02-24 21:59:50 -06:00
607 lines
36 KiB
TeX
607 lines
36 KiB
TeX
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
|
|
\usepackage{blindtext}
|
|
\usepackage{hyperref}
|
|
\usepackage{amsmath}
|
|
\usepackage{amssymb}
|
|
|
|
\usepackage{tikz}
|
|
\usetikzlibrary{arrows, automata, positioning}
|
|
|
|
\usepackage[a4paper, total={6in, 10in}]{geometry}
|
|
\usepackage{setspace}
|
|
\setstretch{1.25}
|
|
\hyphenpenalty 1000
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
\begin{titlepage}
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
|
|
\vspace*{5cm}
|
|
\Large{\textbf{Implementations of Probability Theory}}\\
|
|
|
|
\rule{14cm}{0.05cm}\\ \vspace{.25cm}
|
|
|
|
\Large{Independent Study Report}\\
|
|
\large{Andrew Simonson}
|
|
|
|
\vspace*{\fill}
|
|
\large{Compiled on: \today}\\
|
|
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
\end{titlepage}
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
% Table of Contents
|
|
% \large{Table of Contents}
|
|
\tableofcontents
|
|
\addtocontents{toc}{~\hfill\textbf{Page}\par}
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
% Begin report
|
|
\section{Objective}
|
|
\rule{14cm}{0.05cm}
|
|
|
|
The educational focus of Implementations of Probability Theory surrounds the application of data
|
|
models that produce non-deterministic insights through probabilistic methodology. By pursuing this
|
|
study I hope to gain a deeper understanding of how to apply data in risk calculation for mitigation
|
|
scenarios as they appear in real life, rather than the experimental lab conditions that enable algorithmic
|
|
certainty.
|
|
|
|
In contrast to the path of black-box artificial intelligence and algorithms taught in \textbf{CSCI 335: Machine Learning}, this study is tailored to methods
|
|
designed to produce confidence levels for uncertain events using certain terms, leveraging logical,
|
|
traceable, and definite, calculations. Current course offerings in the realm of data science focus largely on
|
|
the storing and management of data, and it is noted that the cluster of data science was until very recently
|
|
under the branding of data management. Implementations of Probability Theory is intended to extend
|
|
learnings in previous courses, notably \textbf{CSCI 420: Principles of Data Mining}, for more advanced algorithms
|
|
used at the intersection of data and computing after the preprocessing stage.
|
|
|
|
After beginning this study the intended deliverable outline was determined to be technically implausible and has been replaced with
|
|
demonstrations of applied algorithms. Taking inspiration from the retinal mosaic as displayed in \textbf{CSCI 431: Intro to Computer Vision}
|
|
and discussion in \textbf{IGME 589: Computational Creativity and Algorithmic Art} on the appearance and nature of randomness in graphics, I hope to create
|
|
a program that can determine the liklihood that randomly distributed colors on a hexagonal grid appear as they do in an image.
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
\section{Units}
|
|
\rule{14cm}{0.05cm}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Unit 1: Statistics Review}
|
|
To ensure a strong statistical foundation for the future learnings in probabilistic models,
|
|
the first objective was to create a document outlining and defining key topics that are
|
|
prerequisites for probabilities in statistics or for understanding generic analytical models.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Random Variables}
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
\item \textbf{Discrete Random Variables - }values are selected by chance from a countable (including countably infinite) list of distinct values
|
|
\item \textbf{Continuous Random Variables - }values are selected by chance with an uncountable number of values within its range
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Sample Space}
|
|
A sample space is the set of all possible outcomes of an instance. For a six-sided dice roll event,
|
|
the die may land with 1 through 6 dots facing upwards, hence:
|
|
\[S = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] \quad\text{where }S\text{ is the sample space}\]
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Probability Axioms}
|
|
There are three probability axioms:
|
|
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
\item \textbf{Non-negativity}:
|
|
\[
|
|
P(A) \geq 0 \quad \text{for any event }A, \ P(A) \in \mathbb{R}
|
|
\]
|
|
No event can be less likely to occur than an impossible event ( \(P(A) = 0\) ). P(A) is a real number.
|
|
Paired with axiom 2 we can also conclude that \(P(A) \leq 1\).
|
|
|
|
\item \textbf{Normalization}:
|
|
\[
|
|
P(S) = 1\quad\text{where }S\text{ is the sample space}
|
|
\]
|
|
\textbf{Unit Measure - } All event probabilities in a sample space add up to 1. In essence, there is a 100\%
|
|
chance that one of the events in the sample space will occur.
|
|
|
|
\item \textbf{Additivity}:
|
|
\[
|
|
P(A \cup B) = P(A) + P(B) \quad \text{if } A \cap B = \emptyset
|
|
\]
|
|
A union between events that are mutually exclusive (events that cannot both happen for an instance) has a
|
|
probability that is the sum of the associated event probabilities.
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Expectations and Deviation}
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
\item \textbf{Expectation - }The weighted average of the probabilities in the sample space
|
|
\[\sum_{}^{S}{P(A) * A} = E \quad\text{where }E\text{ is the expected value}\]
|
|
\item \textbf{Variance - }The spread of possible values for a random variable, calculated as:
|
|
\[\sigma^{2}=\frac{\sum(X - \mu)^{2}}{N}\]
|
|
Where \(N\) is the population size, \(\mu\) is the population average, and \(X\) is each value in the population.\\
|
|
For samples, variance is calculated with \textbf{Bessel's Correction}, which increases the variance to avoid overfitting the sample:
|
|
\[s^{2}=\frac{\sum(X - \bar{x})^{2}}{n - 1}\]
|
|
\item \textbf{Standard Deviation - }The square root of the variance, giving a measure of the average distance of each data point from the mean in the same units as the data.
|
|
\[\sigma = \sqrt{V}\quad\text{where variance is }V\]
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Probability Functions}
|
|
Probability Functions map the likelihood of random variables to be a specific value.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection*{Probability Mass Functions}
|
|
Probability Mass Functions (PMFs) map discrete random variables.
|
|
For example, a six-sided die roll creates a uniform random PMF. Each side of the die has a one-sixth chance of landing face-up, so the discrete chances of each x
|
|
value between 1 and 6 is represented by a \(\frac{1}{6}\)th portion of the sample space:
|
|
\begin{equation*}
|
|
P(A) =
|
|
\begin{cases}
|
|
1/6\qquad\text{if }&X=1\\
|
|
1/6&X=2\\
|
|
1/6&X=3\\
|
|
1/6&X=4\\
|
|
1/6&X=5\\
|
|
1/6&X=6\\
|
|
\end{cases}
|
|
\end{equation*}
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection*{Probability Density Functions}
|
|
Probability Density Functions (PDFs) map continuous random variables.
|
|
For example, this is a PDF representing a vehicle's risk of being stranded as it travels (in a line at a fixed speed). The y value increases as the vehicle puts
|
|
distance between itself and the starting point but, once the halfway point is reached, the risk decreases as the distance between the vehicle and the destination
|
|
decreases.
|
|
\begin{equation*}
|
|
P(A) =
|
|
\begin{cases}
|
|
X\qquad\qquad\text{if }&0\leq X\leq .5\\
|
|
-X+1&.5<X\leq 1\\
|
|
0&otherwise
|
|
\end{cases}
|
|
\end{equation*}
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Limit Theorems}
|
|
\subsubsection*{Law of Large Numbers}\label{Law of Large Numbers}
|
|
The Law of Large Numbers states that as the number of independent random samples increases, the average of the samples'
|
|
means will approach the true mean of the population.
|
|
\[\text{true average}\approx \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} X_{i} \qquad\text{as }n \rightarrow \infty\]
|
|
\subsubsection*{Central Limit Theorem}
|
|
The Central Limit Theorem states that the sampling distribution of a sample mean is a normal distribution even when the
|
|
population distribution is not normal.
|
|
\[
|
|
\frac{\sqrt{n} \left( \bar{X}_n - \mu \right)}{\sigma} \xrightarrow{d} N(0, 1)
|
|
\]
|
|
Where \(X_i\) is the sample mean, \(N(0, 1)\) is a standard normal distribution, and \(\bar{X}_n = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i\).\\
|
|
This is a challenging to understand solely as an equation. As an example, take a sample of two six-sided dice rolls and average their numbers.
|
|
The more sample averages taken, the more they will resemble a normal distribution where the majority of samples average around 3.5.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Confidence}
|
|
Confidence is described using a confidence interval, which is a range of values that the true value is expected to be in, and its associated confidence level,
|
|
which is a probability (expressed as a percentage) that the true value is in the confidence interval.
|
|
|
|
It is important to note that confidence levels, such as 95\%, do not indicate that the real value is within 5\% of the point estimate. The confidence level expresses
|
|
the probability that the real value is in the range provided by the confidence interval.
|
|
|
|
At the highest level, calculating confidence intervals is simply the observed statistic (generally the mean) plus or minus the standard error. The percentage is
|
|
identified by applying the z-score coefficient (in the case of nornal distribution, other distributions use non-parametric methods) that corresponds to that level
|
|
of confidence. For instance, the z-multiplier for a confidence level of 95\% is 1.96 so a confidence interval formula around the mean would look like this:
|
|
|
|
\[\text{interval} = \mu \pm (1.96 * \text{SE})\]
|
|
|
|
To calculate standard error when the population standard deviation (\(\sigma\)) is known:
|
|
|
|
\[\text{SE} = \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{n}}\]
|
|
|
|
When \(\sigma\) is unknown:
|
|
|
|
\[\text{SE} = \frac{s}{\sqrt{n}}\]
|
|
|
|
where \(n\) is the size of the sample and \(s\) is the sample standard deviation. Notice how the standard error decreases with a larger sample size because it
|
|
indicates a resilience in the sample to random events as per the Law of Large Numbers (\ref{Law of Large Numbers}).
|
|
|
|
% Confidence intervals can be calculated with z-tests, t-tests. Go into parametric vs non-parametric
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Statistical Inference}
|
|
Statistical Inference is any data analysis to draw conclusions from a sample to make assertions about the population.
|
|
Methods include estimation via averages and confidence intervals, and hypothesis testing, which attempts to invalidate (never \textit{validate}) a hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
\subsection{Unit 2: Probabilistic Theories and Epistemology}
|
|
When developing probabilistic models it is vital to use domain expertise to expose the product to the full range of external variables that would be expected
|
|
of a model applied to the real world. Without an appropriate understanding of both the limitations in research procedures and the true value of the data collected,
|
|
the integrity of the model becomes inherently compromised.
|
|
|
|
As data scientists, we are uniquely at risk of falling for this trap because it is hard to fully grasp domain expertise when the nature of data science
|
|
in a business setting frequently means consulting for many separate projects with a collectively massive scope. Of equal consideration, it is also easy
|
|
to assume that the sophistication of our tools overrides imperfections in the data, in spite of mantras like 'Garbage In, Garbage Out'.
|
|
|
|
In this unit I explored some common fallacies and assumptions held by analysts who may not fully grasp the content that they work with,
|
|
nor the problems they intend to solve. This required extensive research that I found was best digested in the form of books whose chapters chronicle multiple
|
|
examples of a given principle. As such, the reading was not confined to just the timeslot designated for this unit. Research started during the months leading up
|
|
to the start of the semester\footnote{Only research during the semester was logged in the timesheet} and have continued through the independent study. This
|
|
structure was particularly helpful to pull me back and gain perspective of what my goal was when I was knee-deep in feature construction and model formulation.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Moral Hazards and The Bob Rubin Trade}
|
|
Picking pennies in front of a steamroller.
|
|
When studying the effectiveness of a model the scope of review must capture the entire range of the sample space. Discarding black swans that don't impact
|
|
the client does not mean the results will not reflect on the client for an oversight. There is therefore a question of obligation for data scientists to include
|
|
flags for significant events in reality that do not effect the proposed course of action to the client.
|
|
|
|
The 2009 recession, attributed to the collapse of the housing market bubble, is the most common example of a moral hazard because the displacement of risk from
|
|
banks who were federally required to give subprime loans to the taxpayer meant that banks could profit from subprime loans but would not be harmed when the inevitable
|
|
occurred. In popular media, the housing bubble bursting is attributed to the banks where those in the industry passed off the event as something that nobody could
|
|
have foreseen\footnote{For instance, in the 2015 movie \textit{The Big Short}, only a few savvy traders who bothered to look into the details find that banks had,
|
|
in their ignorance, built the bundled mortgages on an unstable foundation.}. In reality, banks only ignored a probabilistic eventuality because their models did not
|
|
need to account for such an event.
|
|
|
|
Most emphasize the problems with risk transferrence when creating models. For this study's purposes, the important learning is that probabilistic models should not
|
|
drop evaluations as soon as an event leaves the scope of the immediate client.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Ignoring Improbable Outliers with Outsized Impact}
|
|
In machine learning it is common for algorithms to drop the most extreme (or a random selection of) datapoints to avoid overfitting and errors in data collection.
|
|
One issue with the current implementation of this procedure is that it is often done blindly, ignorant of information that these outliers may relay. For instance,
|
|
in a selection of 300 water samples from a stream, all but a few show a normal amount of oxygen in the stream. A citizen scientist may discount the remaining pockets
|
|
as a statistical implausibility that is most likely indicative of a failure in sample testing and drop the most extreme 5\% of datapoints.
|
|
However, if these few pockets show a complete disruption of the dissolution process, the vast majority of aquatic life in the stream will eventually pass through
|
|
these pockets without oxygen and die, resulting in an outsized impact from just a few sources.
|
|
|
|
Nassim Taleb in \textit{Fooled By Randomness} describes this event with an analogy to Russian Roulette: If there was a 5/6 chance of winning a million dollars and a
|
|
1/6 chance of killing yourself, many people would at least hesitate before pulling the trigger. But what if the barrel is 10,000 rounds and it was only a
|
|
1/10,000 chance of harm? In this case, many less-than-rational actors use the game repeatedly to acquire wealth indefinitely, forgetting or even outright ignorant
|
|
that eventually the unlikely, or, as the actor would see it, the unthinkable, happens and all of the gains are completely negated.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Fooled By Randomness}
|
|
While most statisticians are familiar with techniques to remove noise to get a clearer picture of long-term trends, many forget that noise over longer terms can
|
|
materialize as highly improbable events. For instance, it is improbable to flip a fair coin and have heads land face up 5 times in a row, but if the coin is flipped
|
|
millions of times, it's exceedingly unlikely that a 5-head sequence does not occur.
|
|
|
|
In Nassim Taleb's namesake book, \textit{Fooled By Randomness}, this concept is applied to ongoing timeseries analysis in stock markets. By accounting for the scope
|
|
of the prior evidence, Taleb models the probability that daily events are the effect of noise, a number that remains high even in the face of multiple point swings
|
|
in the market. Understanding this chance is critical because often observers attempt to justify random market events to events with high publicity that in reality
|
|
had a negligible on the market, fooling investors out of acting on prices deviating from their target.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Lindy Effect}\label{Lindy Effect}
|
|
The Lindy Effect describes the importance of historical evidence of continuity when estimating its continuity in the future. For items with a set lifespan, such as
|
|
perishable goods, each passing day is indicative of a shorter remaining life expectancy, but the same is not true for nonperishables like tools and concepts.
|
|
For example, consider the lifespan of a news story or hot book. Many such stories may take the world by storm, but then be nearly forgotten months later. However,
|
|
older writings are incredibly unlikely to be forgotten in the next few months. It would be truly bizzare if everyone decided Shakespeare was not worth learning in
|
|
the next few years because its value has been determined for so long to be high enough to maintain its popularity.
|
|
|
|
Applying this concept to probability theory, information and evidence that has been important for a long time is likely to stick around long after hot new examples
|
|
or tactics that contradict it fade into obscurity. When measuring risk of startups, the concept and foundations may indeed be strong, but they have to be contrasted
|
|
with the robustness of past ideas as proven over time. This concept also has applications for how people think about new things in their day to day life.
|
|
In the news and papers outlining new developments, "Inaccurate science\ldots is constantly being published. The Lindy-conscious consumer of scientific data will take
|
|
seriously only information that has held up over a period of time"\footnote{\url{https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/style/lindy.html}} because time has removed
|
|
uncertainty associated with volatility of untested (or tested less than the alternative) information.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Decision Theory}
|
|
Decision theory is the study of how people make decisions with uncertain information. There are two main branches of decision theory:
|
|
\subsubsection*{Normative/Rational Decision Theory}
|
|
This branch studies how people \textit{should} make decisions. In problems with other actors, as in game theory, it is assumed that all other actors will also
|
|
act with perfect rationality, allowing for precise calculation of the actions of all of the others and their expected utility to the agent.
|
|
\subsubsection*{Descriptive Decision Theory}
|
|
This branch studies how people actually make decisions which includes factors such as psychological and emotional biases. It applies subjective value measurements,
|
|
frequently working in parallel with Dempster-Shafer Theory (\ref{Dempster_Shafer_Theory}).
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Info Gap Decisions}
|
|
In info gap decision theory there is not enough information to assign probabilities to events. The goal, then, is to select a course of action that is robust in the
|
|
face of uncertainty. Where decision theory can predict expectations in irrationality to determine expected values, info gap decisions approximate the range of
|
|
probabilities and weight them to estimate expected value. In essence, it applies probabilities to probabilities, adding an additional layer to insulate calculations
|
|
from a lack of data or lack of understanding of a topic. Tying this into the Lindy Effect (\ref{Lindy Effect}), we can compare the large range of probabilities of
|
|
new, untested information with the narrower range from old, tested information which has experienced more challenges, just as confidence increases with a larger
|
|
sample size.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Dempster-Shafer Theory}\label{Dempster_Shafer_Theory}
|
|
This section is an extra theory chosen to coincide with the unit 3 focus on Bayesian statistics. The Dempster-Shafer theory is a derivative application of
|
|
Bayes Theorem (\ref{Bayes Theorem}) where subjective beliefs are applied to independent variables not tracked by the belief network. Shafer so eloquently describes this
|
|
process by supposing that two friends, both of whom he subjectively believes are 90\% reliable, tell him that a limb has fallen on his car
|
|
\footnote{\url{http://glennshafer.com/assets/downloads/articles/article48.pdf}}. Without observing Shafer's car we can calculate that there is only a 1\% chance that
|
|
both friends are unreliable, so there's a high liklihood that the statement is true.
|
|
|
|
However, if both friends are unreliable, they are not necessarily lying. Thus, there is actually less than 1\% chance that a limb fell on the car. The exact
|
|
probability can only be calculated by determining how likely it is that the friends would find it funny to tell Shafer that a limb fell on his car, contrasted with
|
|
the odds that such a friend may also be willing to throw limbs at his car so as to maintain their ever-reliable facade. If one also considers the possibility
|
|
that Shafer's friends mistakenly believed a limb fell on his car, this uncertainty must also be combined with the evidence for the most accurate picture.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Methodology Considerations}
|
|
I have taken 10134023 instances of the last 40 years, during all of which Obama has been alive. Therefore I can say with a high degree of certainty that Obama is
|
|
immortal.
|
|
|
|
An event never occurring in history does not discount its possiblity of occurring in the future. Similarly, events that may have been impossible in the past
|
|
are not necessarily impossible in the future.
|
|
Also, psychology. Someone who knows they are being studied will act differently than someone who isn't being studied so models will be inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
\subsection{Unit 3: Bayesian Statistics}
|
|
This unit was deliberately separated from statistical review due to the percieved complexity of the topic and the magnitude of usage in recent data science
|
|
breakthroughs. Bayes Theorem is a part of the cirriculum for both \textbf{MATH 351 - Probability and Statistics} and \textbf{CSCI 420 - Principles of Data Mining}.
|
|
However, as both approached the topic from different perspectives and while neither solidified my personal confidence in its use, I chose to take extra time to learn
|
|
this important topic in my own way.
|
|
|
|
It has been said that statistics does not come naturally to the human brain, hence statistics is, by mathematical standards, a
|
|
young discipline. Resulting research on Bayesian statistics has led me to the conclusion that the opposite may be true - Bayes Theorem is quite intuitive, but
|
|
its discipline has not had the time to crystallize best practices for instructing it. For instance, updating one's beliefs to compare probabilities with the
|
|
number of documented occurrences is frequently used in philosophical discussion in the form of explanations that subsets with high liklihood of fufilling terms
|
|
are valid classifications even when the subset size results in overall fufilled terms to be infrequently categorized as the proposed subset. Most people understand
|
|
these expressions but, when shown a table and how to calculate those ratios, the content enters the realm of collegiate instruction.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Bayes Theorem}\label{Bayes Theorem}
|
|
|
|
Bayes Theorem is a rule for conditional probability that calculates the probability of a cause given an event has occurred. The equation for Bayes Theorem is as
|
|
follows:
|
|
|
|
\[
|
|
P(A|E) = \frac{P(A) * P(E|A)}{P(A) * P(E|A) + (1 - P(A)) * P(E|\neg A)}
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
This formula appears more complex as it is. The denominator, while directly translating to "The probability of A times the probability of event E occuring given A
|
|
divided by the probability of A times the probability of event E occuring in A plus the probability of not A times the probability of E occuring in not A"
|
|
can be more easily expressed as \(P(E)\) or the probability of event E occuring:
|
|
|
|
\[
|
|
P(A|E) = \frac{P(A) * P(E|A)}{P(E)}
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
Finally, this equation is updated to replace descriptions with technical terms:
|
|
|
|
\[
|
|
\text{Posterior Probability} = \frac{\text{prior} * \text{likelihood}}{\text{Evidence}}
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
By utilizing venacular more familiar to everyday life, Bayes Theorem can be translated as:
|
|
|
|
\[
|
|
\text{P(occurence stems from A)} = \frac{\text{\# of occurences from A}}{\text{total \# of occurences}}
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
To appeal to mental visualization, the sample space can be imagined geometrically as a 1 unit by 1 unit
|
|
square\footnote{Concept credit to 3Blue1Brown on Youtube, this video is what finally clarified in my mind what the frankly simple equation behind Bayes Theorem
|
|
meant.\\\url{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZGCoVF3YvM}}. The area of this square, 1 unit squared, represents a probability of 1 (or 100\%) and the probability of
|
|
any possible outcome fits inside this square. Intuitively, this visualization can also be thought of as a confusion matrix where the squares are drawn proportional
|
|
to their representative probabilities.
|
|
|
|
Consider an example where a patient wants to know if their positive cancer test is actually a false negative. Reviewing the test history, it's found to be accurate
|
|
95\% across 1,000 uses. Given that we want to find the chances that a positive test is truly from a patient with cancer, let's highlight only the cases where a
|
|
test is positive. A confusion matrix for this example would look like this:
|
|
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}
|
|
\draw[gray, thick, fill=blue!5] (0, 0) rectangle (3, 3);
|
|
\node[align=center, text width=3cm] at (1.5, 1.5) {True Positives\\95 patients};
|
|
|
|
\draw[gray, thick, fill=red!5] (3, 0) rectangle (6, 3);
|
|
\node[align=center, text width=3cm] at (4.5, 1.5) {False Positives\\45 patients};
|
|
|
|
\draw[gray, thick] (0, 3) rectangle (3, 6);
|
|
\node[align=center, text width=3cm] at (1.5, 4.5) {False Negatives\\5 patients};
|
|
|
|
\draw[gray, thick] (3, 3) rectangle (6, 6);
|
|
\node[align=center, text width=3cm] at (4.5, 4.5) {True Negatives\\855 patients};
|
|
|
|
\node[label, align=center, text width=3cm] at (1.5, 6.75) {Cancer\\ (100 patients)};
|
|
\node[label, align=center, text width=3cm] at (4.5, 6.75) {No Cancer\\ (900 patients)};
|
|
\node[label, rotate=90] at (-0.5, 1.5) {Positive};
|
|
\node[label, rotate=90] at (-0.5, 4.5) {Negative};
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
|
|
Notice that the test does make the correct identification 95\% of the time (and in this example, 95\% regardless of actual value) but that there are almost half as
|
|
many false positives as there are true positives, meaning having a positive test is not representative of a 95\% chance of having cancer.
|
|
|
|
Proportinally scaling the probability matrix squares to create the sample space square defined earlier, we can see that the TP box appears to be approximately
|
|
twice the size of the FP box. Logically, then, if we chose a random positive test, there's a two-thirds chance of the patient selected being from the true positive
|
|
category:
|
|
|
|
\vfil % Added to keep the footer down since a new page is entering on the next tikz picture
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}
|
|
\draw[gray, thick] (0,0) rectangle (6, 6);
|
|
\draw[gray, thin] (6/10, 0) -- (6/10, 6);
|
|
\draw[gray, thin, fill=blue!5] (0, 0) rectangle (6/10, 6*.95);
|
|
\draw[gray, thin, fill=red!5] (6/10, 0) rectangle (6, 6*.05);
|
|
\node[label=below:95/1000] at (-1, 2.5) {TP};
|
|
\draw[->] (-0.6, 2.5) -- (0.25, 2.5);
|
|
\node[label=below:45/1000] at (4,-2/3) {FP};
|
|
\draw[->] (4, -1/3) -- (4, .15);
|
|
\node[label=below:5/1000] at (-1, 5.85) {FN};
|
|
\node[label=below:855/1000] at (3.5, 3.5) {TN};
|
|
\draw[->] (-0.6, 5.85) -- (0.25, 5.85);
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
\vskip 2pt
|
|
Bayes Theorem as applied to this problem can be simply expressed as:
|
|
\[
|
|
P(\text{has cancer given positive test}) = \frac{\colorbox{blue!5}{TP}}{\colorbox{blue!5}{TP} + \colorbox{red!5}{FP}} = \frac{\colorbox{blue!5}{\(\frac{95}{1000}\)}}{\colorbox{blue!5}{\(\frac{95}{1000}\)} + \colorbox{red!5}{\(\frac{45}{1000}\)}} = 67.9\%
|
|
\]
|
|
Meaning that, given a random positive test, there is a 67.9\% chance of the patient actually having cancer, not far off from the two-thirds visual trick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Bayesian Updating}
|
|
Bayesian Updating is another term that has been added to buzzword vocabulary to describe a process that isn't directly related to Bayesian Statistics but appears
|
|
to have been rediscovered by academia through study of applied Bayes Theorem. In essence, Bayesian Updating simply states that observed occurrences should not
|
|
override previous evidence and that it should instead be added to it in equal weight (equal value being a naive assumption). This evidence updating makes
|
|
applications of Bayes Theory calculate posterior probabilities continuously as new information enters the system rather than a frequentist approach where
|
|
the calculation only performed once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Bayesian Belief Networks}
|
|
Bayesian Belief Networks are probabilistic graphical models that preserve conditional dependence between random variables. In spite of its name,
|
|
Bayesian Belief Networks do not necessarily apply Bayesian models, though they are a way to utilize Bayes Theorem for domains with greater complexity beyond a
|
|
single posterior probability. In this type of network, edges are directed and the structure is utilized in a single direction. This is in contrast to undirected
|
|
Hidden Markov Models (to be covered in the next unit) that do not assume the order of aquisition of random variables. While it may not be practical to calculate
|
|
the full conditional probability of a variable, Bayesian Belief Networks allow us to identify conditionally dependent variables that are weighted on the basis of
|
|
an earlier random variable.
|
|
|
|
Following the example in the Bayes Theorem section of this report (\ref{Bayes Theorem}), let's suppose that a patient with a positive test takes a hypothetical
|
|
second test. However, the second test's results are partially dependent on the first since they measure overlapping biological markers.
|
|
\vskip 5pt
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}
|
|
\draw[black, thick] (-2, 4.5) rectangle (2, 5.5);
|
|
\node at (0, 5) (bio) {Biological Markers};
|
|
|
|
\draw[black, thick] (-1.5, 3) circle (0.75);
|
|
\node at (-1.5, 3) (T1) {Test 1};
|
|
|
|
\draw[black, thick] (1.5, 3) circle (0.75);
|
|
\node at (1.5, 3) (T2) {Test 2};
|
|
|
|
\draw[black, thick] (-2, 0) rectangle (2, 1);
|
|
\node at (0, 0.5) (DepRes) {Dependent Results};
|
|
|
|
% Draw arrows from the bottom of the circles to the top of the rectangle
|
|
\draw[->] (T1.south) -- (DepRes.north);
|
|
\draw[->] (T2.south) -- (DepRes.north);
|
|
\draw[->] (bio.south) -- (T1.north);
|
|
\draw[->] (bio.south) -- (T2.north);
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
|
|
\vskip 5pt
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
\vskip 5pt
|
|
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
|
|
\hline
|
|
Test 1 Result & Test 2 Result & P(A) \\
|
|
\hline\hline
|
|
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{Prior beliefs of test 1} \\
|
|
\hline
|
|
Unknown & Unknown & 10\% \\
|
|
Positive & Unknown & 67.857\% \\
|
|
Negative & Unknown & 0.581\% \\
|
|
\hline
|
|
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{Prior beliefs of test 2} \\
|
|
\hline
|
|
Unknown & Positive & 55\% \\
|
|
Unknown & Negative & 1\% \\
|
|
\hline
|
|
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{Dependent results from both tests} \\
|
|
\hline
|
|
Positive & Positive & 75\% \\
|
|
Positive & Negative & 1.5\% \\
|
|
Negative & Positive & 0.6\% \\
|
|
Negative & Negative & 0.087\% \\
|
|
\hline
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
Note that this probability of positive results in both tests (which both have greater than 50\% of positives being true positives) is only equally certain as two
|
|
positives from two independent tests each with 50\% of positives being true. If the dependence was not included in the calculation and we ignored the fact
|
|
that the tests partially measure the same thing, as would have occured in a Naive Bayes model, the tests' combined accuracy would be unjustly inflated.
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
\subsection{Unit 4: Markov Methods}
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Markov Chains}
|
|
Markov Chains are a form of probabilistic automaton where, the likelihood of transitioning to a new state depends solely on the current state, with no memory of prior
|
|
states. For example\footnote{example sourced from:\\\url{https://towardsdatascience.com/introduction-to-markov-chains-50da3645a50d}}, suppose a weather prediction
|
|
program wants to know whether tomorrow will be a sunny or cloudy day, based on the current weather. Using the current weather as a state, the program identifies that
|
|
there is a 10\% chance of a sunny day transitioning into a cloudy day and a 50\% chance that a cloudy day transitions into a sunny day:
|
|
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt, node distance=3cm, on grid, auto]
|
|
|
|
\node[state] (Sunny) {Sunny};
|
|
\node[state, right=of Sunny] (Cloudy) {Cloudy};
|
|
|
|
\path[->]
|
|
(Sunny) edge [loop left] node {.9} (Sunny)
|
|
edge [bend right=-15] node {.1} (Cloudy)
|
|
(Cloudy) edge [loop right] node {.5} (Cloudy)
|
|
edge [bend left=15] node {.5} (Sunny);
|
|
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
|
|
Note that there is no information preserved between steps. Markov Chains are memoryless, so any information that must be available to them must be expressed as the
|
|
state, such as the sunny and cloudy states in the example above. One benefit of such a straightforward structure is that it enables easy calculation of the
|
|
probabilities of reaching a state k-steps from the current position. By expressing the chain as a transition matrix where rows represent the current state, the
|
|
column represents the next state, and each cell contains the probability of the state moving from the column state to the row state, we get a 1-step transition matrix:
|
|
|
|
\[
|
|
\begin{pmatrix}
|
|
.9 & .1 \\
|
|
.5 & .5
|
|
\end{pmatrix}
|
|
\]
|
|
or, expressed as a table:
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
\begin{tabular}{ | c | c | c | }
|
|
\hline
|
|
Current State & Next: Sunny & Next: Cloudy \\
|
|
\hline
|
|
\hline
|
|
Sunny & 90\% & 10\% \\
|
|
\hline
|
|
Cloudy & 50\% & 50\% \\
|
|
\hline
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
|
|
To turn this into a k-steps transition matrix, this 1-step matrix only needs to be raised to the k-th power:
|
|
\[
|
|
\begin{pmatrix}
|
|
.9 & .1 \\
|
|
.5 & .5
|
|
\end{pmatrix}^k
|
|
\]
|
|
To find the probability of the weather two days from the current state, plug 2 into k:
|
|
\[
|
|
\begin{pmatrix}
|
|
.9 & .1 \\
|
|
.5 & .5
|
|
\end{pmatrix}^2 =
|
|
\begin{pmatrix}
|
|
.86 & .14 \\
|
|
.7 & .3
|
|
\end{pmatrix}
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
From this matrix we can determine that if it is currently sunny, there is a 86\% chance that it will be sunny in two days and, if it is currently cloudy, there is a
|
|
70\% chance that it will be sunny in two days. As k approaches infinity, the model approaches its equilibrium where the starting state becomes irrelevant. In this
|
|
example, any random day would be 83.333\% likely to be sunny, representative of the long-term behavior of the system (climate), so the matrix of the equilibrium
|
|
looks like this:
|
|
|
|
\[\begin{pmatrix}
|
|
.9 & .1 \\
|
|
.5 & .5
|
|
\end{pmatrix}^\infty \approx
|
|
\begin{pmatrix}
|
|
.83333 & .16666 \\
|
|
.83333 & .16666
|
|
\end{pmatrix}
|
|
\text{ OR: }
|
|
\begin{pmatrix}
|
|
.83333 \\
|
|
.16666
|
|
\end{pmatrix}
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Hidden Markov Models}
|
|
maybe add notes on mixed
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
\subsection{Unit 5: Monte Carlo Simulations}
|
|
what is this shit
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{How To Make a Monte Carlo Simulation}
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Monte Carlo Integration}
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods}
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
\section{Applied Projects}
|
|
\rule{14cm}{0.05cm}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Randomness of Retinal Mosaic layout}
|
|
hexagonal grid of marbles. are colors randomly distributed?
|
|
Hexagonal basis vectors, retinal mosaic, entropy
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Bayes Server Ripoff}
|
|
I planned to create a trickle-down density belief network using probability density functions as nodes that choose the direction of rows in a relational database.
|
|
Found this later, it's sort of similar. \url{https://www.bayesserver.com/}
|
|
|
|
Even better than their jank bayesian belief network I may be able to make mixed bayesian/markov chain models. This is a big project.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Cost-Benefit Analysis of Asychronous Education}
|
|
This section covers a calculation I devised to make me feel better about my life decisions. The data is based on implicit guesswork and, while I will be taking it
|
|
seriously for my decision to do either the online or on-campus RIT Data Science Masters Program, it should not be taken seriously as a probabilistic model.
|
|
Since there is no framework for making a subjective decision weighting the potential benefits of on-campus life with the value of entering the workforce 18 months
|
|
sooner, I decided to make one. Inshallah I shall reach my true potential and fulfill destiny.
|
|
|
|
with archaic knowledge imbued by Dr. Pepper flowing through my veins, I have selected \(y= 3x^2 - 2y\) as the equation for covariance.
|
|
|
|
\end{document} |