arxiv: v3 [cs.ai] 8 Feb 2019

Transcription

1 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion via String Diagrams K E N T A C H O and B A R T J A C O B S ariv: v3 [s.ai] 8 Feb 2019 National Institute of Informatis Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo , Japan ho@nii.a.jp Institute for Computing and Information Sienes, Radboud University P.O.Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, the Netherlands bart@s.ru.nl Reeived 31 August 2017; revised 7 Deember 2018 The notions of disintegration and Bayesian inversion are fundamental in onditional probability theory. They produe hannels, as onditional probabilities, from a joint state, or from an already given hannel (in opposite diretion). These notions exist in the literature, in onrete situations, but are presented here in abstrat graphial formulations. The resulting abstrat desriptions are used for proving basi results in onditional probability theory. The existene of disintegration and Bayesian inversion is disussed for disrete probability, and also for measure-theoreti probability via standard Borel spaes and via likelihoods. Finally, the usefulness of disintegration and Bayesian inversion is illustrated in several examples. 1. Introdution The essene of onditional probability an be summarised informally in the following equation about probability distributions: joint onditional marginal. A bit more preisely, when we have joint probabilities P(x, y) for elements x, y ranging over two sample spaes, the above equation splits into two equations, P(y x) P(x) P(x, y) P(x y) P(y), (1) where P(x) and P(y) desribe the marginals, whih are obtained by disarding variables. We see that onditional probabilities P(y x) and P(x y) an be onstruted in two diretions, namely y given x, and x given y. We also see that we need to opy variables: x on the left-hand-side of the equations (1), and y on the right-hand-side. Conditional probabilities play a ruial role in Bayesian probability theory. They form the nodes of Bayesian networks (Pearl, 1988; Bernardo and Smith, 2000; Barber, 2012),

2 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 2 whih reflet the onditional independenies of the underlying joint distribution via their graph struture. As part of our approah, we shall apture onditional independene in an abstrat manner. The main notion of this paper is disintegration. It is the proess of extrating a onditional probability from a joint probability. Disintegration, as we shall formalise it here, gives a strutural desription of the above equation (1) in terms of states and hannels. In general terms, a state is a probability distribution of some sort (disrete, measure-theoreti, or even quantum) and a hannel is a map or morphism in a probabilisti setting, like P(y x) and P(x y) as used above. It an take the form of a stohasti matrix, probabilisti transition system, Markov kernel, onditional probability table (in a Bayesian network), or morphism in a Kleisli ategory of a probability monad (Jaobs, 2018). A state is a speial kind of hannel, with trivial domain. Thus we an work in a monoidal ategory of hannels, where we need disarding and opying more formally, a omonoid struture on eah objet in order to express the above onditional probability equations (1). In this artile we abstrat away from interpretation details and will desribe disintegration pitorially, in the language of string diagrams. This language an be seen as the internal language of symmetri monoidal ategories (Selinger, 2010) with omonoids in our ase. The essene of disintegration beomes: extrating a onditional probability hannel from a joint state. Categorial approahes to Bayesian onditioning have appeared for instane in (Culbertson and Sturtz, 2014; Staton et al., 2016; Cler et al., 2017) and in (Jaobs et al., 2015; Jaobs and anasi, 2016; Jaobs, 2018). The latter referenes use effetus theory (Jaobs, 2015; Cho et al., 2015), a new omprehensive approah aimed at overing the logi of both quantum theory and probability theory, supported by a Python-based tool EfProb, for effetus probability. This tool is used for the (omputationally extensive) examples in this paper. Disintegration, also known as regular onditional probability, is a notoriously diffiult operation in measure-theoreti probability, see e.g. (Pollard, 2002; Panangaden, 2009; Chang and Pollard, 1997): it may not exist (Stoyanov, 2014); even if it exists it may be determined only up to negligible sets; and it may not be ontinuous or omputable (Akerman et al., 2011). Disintegration has been studied using ategorial language in (Culbertson and Sturtz, 2014), whih fouses on a speifi ategory of probabilisti mappings. Our approah here is more axiomati. We thus desribe disintegration as going from a joint state to a hannel. A losely related onept is Bayesian inversion: it turns a hannel (with a state) into a hannel in opposite diretion. We show how Bayesian inversion an be understood and expressed easily in terms of disintegration and also how, in the other diretion, disintegration an be obtained from Bayesian inversion. Bayesian inversion is taken as primitive notion in (Cler et al., 2017). Here we start from disintegration. The differene is a matter of hoie. Bayesian inversion is ruial for bakward inferene. We explain it informally: let be a state of a domain/type, and : be a hannel; Bayesian inversion yields a hannel d:. Informally, it produes for an element y, seen as singleton/point

3 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 3 prediate {y}, the onditioning of the state with the pulled bak evidene 1 ({y}). A onrete example involving suh point observations will be desribed at the end of Setion 8. More generally, disintegration and Bayesian inversion are used to struturally organise state updates in the presene of new evidene in probabilisti programming, see e.g. (Gordon et al., 2014; Borgström et al., 2013; Staton et al., 2016; Katoen et al., 2015). See also (Shan and Ramsey, 2017), where disintegration is handled via symboli manipulation. Disintegration and Bayesian inversion are relatively easy to define in disrete probability theory. The situation is muh more diffiult in measure-theoreti probability theory, first of all beause point prediates {y} do not make muh sense there, see also (Chang and Pollard, 1997). A ommon solution to the problem of the existene of disintegration / Bayesian inversion is to restrit ourselves to standard Borel spaes, as in (Cler et al., 2017). We take this approah too. There is still an issue that disintegration is determined only up to negligible sets. We address this by defining almost equality in our abstrat pitorial formulation. This allows us to present a fundamental result from (Cler et al., 2017) abstratly in our setting, see Setion 5. Another ommon, more onrete solution is to assume a likelihood, that is, a probabilisti relation R 0. Suh a likelihood gives rise to probability density funtion (pdf), providing a good handle on the situation, see (Pawitan, 2001). The tehnial ore of Setion 8 is a generalisation of this likelihood-based approah. The paper is organised as follows. It starts with a brief introdution to the graphial language that we shall be using, and to the underlying monoidal ategories with disarding and opying. Then, Setion 3 introdues both disintegration and Bayesian inversion in this graphial language, and relates the two notions. Subsequently, Setion 4 ontains an elaborated example, namely of naive Bayesian lassifiation. A standard example from the literature (Witten et al., 2011) is redesribed in the urrent setting: first, hannels are extrated via disintegration from a table with given data; next, Bayesian inversion is applied to the ombined extrated hannels, giving the required lassifiation. This is illustrated in both the disrete and the ontinuous version of the example. Next, Setion 5 is more tehnial and elaborates the standard equality notion of equal almost everywhere in the urrent setting. This is used for desribing Bayesian inversion in a more formal way, following (Cler et al., 2017). Setion 6 uses our graphial approah to review onditional independene and to prove at an abstrat level several known results, namely the equivalene of various formulations of onditional independene, and the graphoid axioms from (Verma and Pearl, 1988; Geiger et al., 1990). Setion 7 relaxes the requirement that maps are ausal, so that effets an be used as the duals of states for validity and onditioning. The main result relates onditioning of joint states to forward and bakward inferene via the extrated hannels, in the style of (Jaobs and anasi, 2016; Jaobs and anasi, 2018); it is illustrated in a onrete example, where a Bayesian network is seen as a graph in a Kleisli ategory following (Fong, 2012). Finally, Setion 8 gives the likelihood formulation of disintegration and inversion, as briefly desribed above.

4 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 4 2. Graphial language The basi idea underlying this paper is to desribe probability theory in terms of hannels. A hannel f : is a (stohasti) proess from a system of type into that of. Conretely, it may be a probability matrix or kernel. Our standing assumption is that types (as objets) and hannels (as arrows) form a symmetri monoidal ategory. For the formal definition we refer to (Ma Lane, 1998). We informally summarise that we have the following onstrutions. 1 Sequential omposition g f : for appropriately typed hannels f : and g :. 2 Parallel omposition f g : W for f : and g : W. This involves omposition of types. 3 Identity hannels id :, whih do nothing. Thus id f f id f. 4 A unit type I, whih represents no system. Thus I I. 5 Swap isomorphisms and assoiativity isomorphisms ( ) ( ), so the ordering in omposed types does not matter. The representation of suh hannels in the ordinary formula notation easily beomes omplex and thus reasoning beomes hard to follow. A graphial language known as string diagrams offers a more onvenient and intuitive way of reasoning in a symmetri monoidal ategory. In string diagrams, types/objets are represented as wires, with information flowing bottom to top. The omposition of types is depited by juxtaposition of wires, and the unit type is no diagram as below. I Channels/arrows are represented by boxes with an input wire(s) and an output wire(s), in upward diretion. When a box does not have input or output, we write it as a triangle or diamond. For example, f :, : I, p: I, and s: I I are respetively depited as: f p s The identity hannels are represented by no box, i.e. just wires, and the swap isomorphisms are represented by rossing of wires: id Finally, the sequential omposition of hannels is depited by onneting the input and

5 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 5 output wires, and the parallel omposition is given by juxtaposition, respetively as below: g f g f h k h k The use of string diagrams is justified by the following oherene theorem; see (Joyal and Street, 1991; Selinger, 2010) for details. Theorem 2.1. A well-formed equation between omposites of arrows in a symmetri monoidal ategory follows from the axioms of symmetri monoidal ategories if and only if the string diagrams of both sides are equal up to isomorphism of diagrams. We further assume the following struture in our ategory. For eah type there are a disarder : I and a opier :. They are required to satisfy the following equations: This says that (, ) forms a ommutative omonoid on. By the assoiativity we may write:... : Moreover we assume that the omonoid strutures (, ) are ompatible with the monoidal struture (, I), in the sense that the following equations hold.... I I Note that we do not assume that these maps are natural. Expliitly, we do not neessarily have f (f f) or f. We will use these symmetri monoidal ategories throughout in the paper. For onveniene, we introdue a term for them. Definition 2.2. A CD-ategory is a symmetri monoidal ategory (C,, I) with a ommutative omonoid (, ) for eah C, suitably ompatible as desribed above. Here CD stands for Copy/Disard. Definition 2.3. An arrow f : in a CD-ategory is said to be ausal if f. A CD-ategory is affine if all the arrows are ausal, or equivalently, the tensor unit I is a final objet.

6 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 6 The term ausal omes from (ategorial) quantum foundation (Coeke and Kissinger, 2017; D Ariano et al., 2017), and is related to relativisti ausality, see e.g. (Coeke, 2016). We reserve the term hannel for ausal arrows. Expliitly, ausal arrows : in a CD-ategory are alled hannels. A hannel : I with input type I is alled a state (on ). For the time being we will only use hannels (and states), and thus only onsider affine CD-ategories. Non-ausal arrows will not appear until Setion 7. Our main examples of affine CD-ategories are two Kleisli ategories Kl(D) and Kl(G), respetively, for disrete probability, and more general, measure-theoreti probability. We explain them in order below. There are more examples, like the Kleisli ategory of the non-empty powerset monad, or the (opposite of) the ategory of ommutative C -algebras (with positive unital maps), but they are out of sope here. Example 2.4. What we all a distribution or a state over a set is a finite subset {x 1, x 2,..., x n }, alled the support where eah element x i ours with a multipliity r i [0, 1], suh that i r i 1. Suh a onvex ombination is often written as r 1 x r n x n with r i [0, 1]. The ket notation is meaningless syntati sugar that is used to distinguish elements x from ourrenes in suh formal sums. Notie that a distribution an also be written as a funtion : [0, 1] with finite support supp() {x (x) 0}. We shall write D() for the set of distributions over. This D is a monad on the ategory Set of sets and funtions. A funtion f : D( ) is alled a Kleisli map; it forms a hannel. Suh maps an be omposed as matries, for whih we use speial notation. (g f)(x)(z) y f(x)(y) g(y)(z) for g : D() with x, z. We write 1 { } for a singleton set, and {0, 1}. Notie that D(1) 1 and D(2) [0, 1]. We an identify a state on with a hannel 1. The monad D is known to be ommutative. This implies that finite produts of sets give rise to a symmetri monoidal struture on the Kleisli ategory Kl(D). Speifially, for two maps f : D( ) and g : D(W ), the tensor produt / parallel omposition f g : D( W ) is given by: (f g)(x, z)(y, w) f(x, y) g(z, w). For eah set there are a opier : D( ) and a disarder : D(1) given by (x) 1 x, x and (x) 1, respetively. They ome from the artesian (finite produt) struture of the base ategory Set, through the obvious funtor Set Kl(D). Therefore Kl(D) is a CD-ategory. It is moreover affine, sine the monad is affine in the sense that D(1) 1. Example 2.5. Let (, Σ ) be a measurable spae, where Σ is a -algebra on. A probability measure, also alled a state, on is a funtion : Σ [0, 1] whih is ountably additive and satisfies () 1. We write G() for the olletion of all suh probability measures on. This set G() is itself a measurable spae with the smallest -algebra suh that for eah A Σ the evaluation map ev A : G() [0, 1], ev A () (A), is measurable. Notie that G() D() when is a finite set (as

7 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 7 disrete spae). In partiular, G(2) D(2) [0, 1]. This G is a monad on the ategory Meas of measurable spaes, with measurable funtions between them; it is alled the Giry monad, after (Giry, 1982). A Kleisli map, that is, a measurable funtion f : G( ) is a hannel (or a probability kernel, see Example 7.2). These hannels an be omposed, via Kleisli omposition, using integration : (g f)(x)(c) g(y)(c) f(x)(dy) where g : G() and x, C Σ. It is well-known that the monad G is ommutative and affine, see also (Jaobs, 2018). Thus, in a similar manner to the previous example, the Kleisli ategory Kl(G) is an affine CD-ategory. The parallel omposition f g : G( W ) for f : G( ) and g : G(W ) is given as: (f g)(x, z)(b D) f(x)(b) g(z)(d), for x, z, B Σ, and D Σ W. Sine f(x) and g(z) are (-)finite measures, this indeed determines a unique measure (f g)(x, z) G( W ), namely the unique produt measure of f(x) and g(z). Expliitly, for E Σ W, ( ) (f g)(x, z)(e) 1 E (y, w) f(x)(dy) g(z)(dw) where 1 E is the indiator funtion. W 3. Marginalisation, integration and disintegration Let C be an affine CD-ategory. We think of states : I in C as abstrat (probability) distributions on type. States of the form : I, often alled (bipartite) joint states, are seen as joint distributions on and. Later on we shall also onsider n-partite joint states, but for the time being we restrit ourselves to bipartite ones. For a joint distribution P(x, y) in disrete probability, we an alulate the marginal distribution on by summing (or marginalising) out, as P(x) y P(x, y). The marginal distribution on is also alulated by P(y) x P(x, y). In our abstrat setting, given a joint state : I, we an obtain marginal states simply by disarding wires, as in: marginal on marginal on In other words, the marginal states are the state omposed with the projetion maps π 1 : and π 2 :, as below. π 1 : π 2 : We denote the integral of a funtion f with respet to a measure µ by f(x) µ(dx).

8 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 8 Example 3.1. For a joint state D( ) in Kl(D), the first marginal 1 π 1 is given by 1 (x) y (x, y), as expeted. Similarly the seond marginal is given by 2 (y) x (x, y). Example 3.2. For a joint state G( ) in Kl(G), the first marginal is given by 1 (A) (A ) for A Σ, and the seond marginal by 2 (B) ( B) for B Σ. A hannel : is seen as an abstrat onditional distribution P(y x). In (disrete) probability theory, we an alulate a joint distribution P(x, y) from a distribution P(x) and a onditional distribution P(y x) by the formula P(x, y) P(y x) P(x), whih is often alled the produt rule. Similarly we have P(x, y) P(x y) P(y). In our setting, starting from a state : I and a hannel :, or a state τ : I and a hannel d:, we an integrate them into a joint state on as follows, respetively: or d (2) τ Example 3.3. Let D() and : D( ) be a state and a hannel in Kl(D). An easy alulation verifies that (id ), the joint state on defined as in (2), satisfies (x, y) (x)(y) (x), as we expet from the produt rule. Example 3.4. For a state G() and a hannel : G( ) in Kl(G), the joint state (id ) is given by (A B) A (x)(b) (dx) for A Σ and B Σ. This integration onstrution of a joint probability measure is standard, see e.g. (Pollard, 2002; Panangaden, 2009). Disintegration is an inverse operation of the integration of a state and a hannel into a joint state, as in (2). More speifially, it starts from a joint state : I and extrats either a state 1 : I and a hannel 1 :, or a state 2 : I and a hannel 2 : as below, ( 1, 1 ) disintegration disintegration ( 2, 2 ) suh that the equation on the left or right below holds, respetively. 1 2 (3) 1 2

9 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 9 We immediately see from the equation that 1 and 2 must be marginals of : and similarly 2. Therefore a disintegration of may be referred to by a hannel i only, rather than a pair ( i, i ). This leads to the following definition: Definition 3.5. Let : I be a joint state. A hannel 1 : (or 2 : ) is alled a disintegration of if it satisfies the equation (3) with i the marginals of. Let us look at onrete instanes of disintegrations, in the Kleisli ategories Kl(D) and Kl(G) from Examples 2.4 and 2.5. Example 3.6. Let D( ) be a joint state in Kl(D). We write 1 D() for the first marginal, given by 1 (x) y (x, y). Then a hannel : D( ) is a disintegration of if and only if (x, y) (x)(y) 1 (x) for all x and y. It turns out that there is always suh a hannel. We define a hannel by: (x)(y) : (x,y) 1(x) if 1 (x) 0, (4) and (x) : τ if 1 (x) 0, for an arbitrary state τ D( ). (Here D( ) is nonempty, sine so is D( ).) This indeed defines a hannel satisfying the required equation. Roughly speaking, disintegration in disrete probability is nothing but the definition of onditional probability: P(y x) P(x, y)/ P(x). There is still some subtlety disintegrations need not be unique, when there are x with 1 (x) 0. They are, nevertheless, almost surely unique; see Setion 5. Example 3.7. Disintegrations in measure-theoreti probability, in Kl(G), are far more diffiult. Let G( ) be a joint state, with 1 G() the first marginal. A hannel : G( ) is a disintegration of if and only if (A B) (x)(b) 1 (dx) A for all A Σ and B Σ. This is the ordinary notion of disintegration (of probability measures), also known as regular onditional probability; see e.g. (Faden, 1985; Pollard, 2002; Panangaden, 2009). We see that there is no obvious way to obtain a hannel here, unlike the disrete ase. In fat, a disintegration may not exist (Stoyanov, 2014). There are, however, a number of results that guarantee the existene of a disintegration in ertain situations. We will ome bak to this issue later in the setion. Bayesian inversion is a speial form of disintegration, ourring frequently. We start

10 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 10 from a state : I and a hannel :. We then integrate them into a joint state on and, and disintegrate it in the other diretion, as below. (, ) integration disintegration (, d ) We all the disintegration d: a Bayesian inversion for : I along :. By unfolding the definitions, a hannel d: is a Bayesian inversion if and only if d. (5) The omposite is also written as (). The operation (), alled state transformation, is used to explain forward inferene in (Jaobs and anasi, 2016). Example 3.8. Let D() and : D( ) be a state and a hannel in Kl(D). Then a hannel d: D() is a Bayesian inversion for along if and only if (x)(y) (x) d(y)(x) ()(y), where ()(y) x (x )(y) (x ). In a similar manner to Example 3.6, we an obtain suh a d by: d(y)(x) : (x)(y) (x) ()(y) (x)(y) (x) x (x )(y) (x ) for y with ()(y) 0. For y with ()(y) 0, we may define d(y) to be an arbitrary state in D(). We an reognise the above formula as the Bayes formula: P(x y) P(y x) P(x) P(y) P(y x) P(x) x P(y x ) P(x ). Example 3.9. Let G() and : G( ) be a state and a hannel in Kl(G). A hannel d: G() is a Bayesian inversion if and only if (x)(b) (dx) d(y)(a) ()(dy) A for all A Σ and B Σ. Here () G( ) is the measure given by ()(B) (x)(b) (dx). As we see below, Bayesian inversions are in some sense equivalent to disintegrations, and thus, they are as diffiult as disintegrations. In partiular, a Bayesian inversion need not exist. In pratie, however, the state and hannel are often given via density funtions. This setting, so-alled (absolutely) ontinuous probability, makes it easy to ompute a Bayesian inversion. Suppose that and are subspaes of R, and that and admit B

11 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 11 density funtions as (A) A f(x) dx (x)(b) B l(x, y) dy for measurable funtions f : R 0 and l: R 0. The onditional probability density l(x, y) of y given x is often alled the likelihood of x given y. By the familiar Bayes formula for densities see e.g. (Bernardo and Smith, 2000) the onditional density of x given y is: k(y, x) : l(x, y) f(x) l(x, y) f(x ) dx. This k then gives a hannel d: G() by d(y)(a) k(y, x) dx for eah y suh that l(x, y) f(x ) dx 0. For the other y s we define d(y) to be some fixed state in G(). An elementary alulation verifies that d is indeed a Bayesian inversion for along. Later, in Setion 8, we generalise this alulation into our abstrat setting. Although Bayesian inversions are a speial ase of disintegrations, we an onversely obtain disintegrations from Bayesian inversions, as in the proposition below. Therefore, in some sense the two notions are equivalent. Proposition Let be a state on. Let d: be a Bayesian inversion for along the first projetion π 1 : on the left below. A π 1 π 2 d d Then the omposite π 2 d: shown on the right above is a disintegration of. Proof. We prove that the first equation in (3) holds for 1 π 2 d, as follows. d d d For the marked equality we used the equation (5) for the Bayesian inversion d. We say that an affine CD-ategory C admits disintegration if for every bipartite state : I there exist a disintegration 1 : of. Note that in suh ategories there also exists a disintegration 2 : of in the other diretion, sine it an be

12 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 12 obtained as a disintegration of the following state:. By Proposition 3.10, admitting disintegration is equivalent to admitting Bayesian inversion. In Example 3.6, we have seen that Kl(D) admits disintegration, but that in measuretheoreti probability, in Kl(G), disintegrations may not exist. There are however a number of results that guarantee the existene of disintegrations in speifi situations, see e.g. (Pahl, 1978; Faden, 1985). We here invoke one of these results and show that there is a subategory of Kl(G) that admits disintegration. A measurable spae is alled a standard Borel spae if it is measurably isomorphi to a Polish spae with its Borel -algebra, or equivalently, if it is measurably isomorphi to a Borel subspae of R. Then the following theorem is standard, see e.g. (Pollard, 2002, 5.2) or (Faden, 1985, 5). Theorem Let be any measurable spae and be a standard Borel spae. Then for any state (i.e. a probability measure) G( ) in Kl(G), there exists a disintegration 1 : G( ) of. Let pkrn sb be the full subategory of Kl(G) onsisting of standard Borel spaes as objets. Clearly pkrn sb ontains the singleton measurable spae 1, whih is the tensor unit of Kl(G). We laim that the produt (in Meas, hene the tensor produt in Kl(G)) of two standard Borel spaes is again standard Borel. Let (, Σ ) and (, Σ ) be standard Borel spaes. We fix Polish ( separable ompletely metrisable) topologies on and that indue the -algebras Σ and Σ, respetively. Then the produt, as topologial spaes, is Polish (Doberkat, 2007, Lemma 1.17). The Borel -algebra of the Polish spae oinides with the -algebra on the produt in Meas (Panangaden, 2009, Proposition 2.8). Hene is standard Borel. Therefore the subategory pkrn sb Kl(G) is losed under the monoidal struture of Kl(G), so that pkrn sb is an affine CD-ategory. Then the previous theorem immediately shows: Corollary The ategory pkrn sb admits disintegration. We note that pkrn sb an also be seen as the Kleisli ategory of the Giry monad restrited on the ategory of standard Borel spaes, beause G() is standard Borel whenever is standard Borel. To see this, let (, Σ ) be a standard Borel spae. If we fix a Polish topology on that indues Σ, then G() also forms a Polish spae with the topology of weak onvergene, see (Giry, 1982) or (Doberkat, 2007, 1.5.2). The -algebra on G(), defined in Example 2.5, oinides with the Borel -algebra with respet to the Polish topology (Doberkat, 2007, Proposition 1.80). Therefore G() is standard Borel. Sine there are various existene theorems like Theorem 3.11, there may be other subategories of Kl(G) that admit disintegration. A likely andidate is the ategory of perfet probabilisti mappings in (Culbertson and Sturtz, 2014). We do not go into this question here, sine pkrn sb suffies for the present paper.

13 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion Example: naive Bayesian lassifiers via inversion Bayesian lassifiation is a well-known tehnique in mahine learning that produes a distribution over data lassifiations, given ertain sample data. The distribution desribes the probability, for eah data (lassifiation) ategory, that the sample data is in that ategory. Here we onsider an example of naive Bayesian lassifiation, where the features are assumed to be independent. We onsider a standard lassifiation example from the literature whih forms an ideal setting to illustrate the use of both disintegration and Bayesian inversion. Disintegration is used to extrat hannels from a given table, and subsequently Bayesian inversion is applied to (the tuple of) these hannels to obtain the atual lassifiation. The use of hannels and disintegration/inversion in this lassifiation setting is new, as far as we know. For the desription of the relevant operations in this example we use notation for marginalisation and disintegration that we borrowed from the EfProb library (Cho and Jaobs, 2017). There are many ways to marginalise an n-partite state, namely one for eah subset of the wires {1, 2,..., n}. Suh a subset an be desribed as a mask, onsisting of a list of n zero s or one s, where a zero at position i means that the i-th wire/omponent is marginalised out, and a one at position i means that it remains. Suh a mask M [b 1,..., b n ] with b i {0, 1} is used as a post-fix seletion operation in.m on an n-partite state. An example explains it all: if then.[1, 0, 1, 0, 0] In a similar way one an disintegrate an n-partite state in 2 n may ways, where a mask of length n is now used to desribe whih wires are used as input to the extrated hannel and whih ones as output. We write M for suh a disintegration, where M is a mask, as above. A systemati desription will be given in Setion 6 below. In pratie it is often useful to be able to marginalise first, and disintegrate next. The general desription in n-ary form is a bit ompliated, so we use an example for n 5. We shall label the wires with x i, as on the left below. We seek the onditional probability written onventionally as [x 1, x 4 x 2, x 5 ] on the right below. x 1 x 4 x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 This hannel must satisfy: x 2 x 5 This piture shows how to obtain the hannel from : we first marginalise to restrit

14 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 14 Outlook Temperature Humidity Windy Play Sunny hot high false no Sunny hot high true no Overast hot high false yes Rainy mild high false yes Rainy ool normal false yes Rainy ool normal true no Overast ool normal true yes Sunny mild high false no Sunny ool normal false yes Rainy mild normal false yes Sunny mild normal true yes Overast mild high true yes Overast hot normal false yes Rainy mild high true no Fig. 1. Weather and play data, opied from (Witten et al., 2011). to the relevant wires x 1, x 2, x 4, x 5. This is written as.[1, 1, 0, 1, 1]. Subsequently we disintegrate with x 1, x 4 as output and x 2, x 5 as input. Hene: :.[1, 1, 0, 1, 1] [0, 1, 0, 1] :. [ [1, 0, 0, 1, 0] [0, 1, 0, 0, 1] ] as we shall write in the sequel. We see that the latter post-fix [ [1, 0, 0, 1, 0] ] [0, 1, 0, 0, 1] is a variable free version of the traditional notation [x 1, x 4 x 2, x 5 ], seleting the relevant positions. We have now prepared the ground and an turn to the lassifiation example that we announed. It involves the lassifiation of playing (yes or no) for ertain weather data, used in (Witten et al., 2011). We shall first go through the disrete example in some detail. The relevant data are in the table in Figure 1. The question is: given this table, what an be said about the probability of playing if the outlook is Sunny, the temperature is Cold, the humidity is High and it is Windy? Our plan is to first organise these table data into four hannels d O, d T, d H, d W in a network of the form: Outlook Temperature Humidity Windy d O d T Play We start by extrating the underlying sets for for the ategories in the table in Figure 1. We hoose abbreviations for the entries in eah of the ategories. O {s, o, r} W {t, f} T {h, m, } P {y, n} H {h, n}. d H d W (6)

15 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 15 These sets are ombined into a single produt domain: D O T H W P. It ombines the five olumns in Figure 1. The table itself in the figure is represented as a uniform distribution τ D(D). This distribution has 14 entries like in the table and looks as follows. τ s, h, h, f, n + 14 s, h, h, t, n r, m, h, t, n. We extrat the four hannels in Diagram (6) via appropriate disintegrations, from the Play olumn to the Outlook / Temperature / Humidity / Windy olumns. d O τ. [ [1, 0, 0, 0, 0] [0, 0, 0, 0, 1] ] d T τ. [ [0, 1, 0, 0, 0] [0, 0, 0, 0, 1] ] d H τ. [ [0, 0, 1, 0, 0] [0, 0, 0, 0, 1] ] d W τ. [ [0, 0, 0, 1, 0] [0, 0, 0, 0, 1] ]. Thus, as desribed in the beginning of this setion, the outlook hannel d O : P D(O) is extrated by first marginalising the table τ to the relevant (first and last) wires, and then disintegrating. Expliitly, d O is τ.[1, 0, 0, 0, 1] [0, 1] and satisfies: O P O P d O where π P π In a next step we ombine these four hannels into a single hannel d: P O T H W via tupling: d : d O d T d H d W The answer that we are looking for will be obtained by Bayesian inversion of this hannel d wrt. the above fifth marginal Play state π τ.[0, 0, 0, 0, 1] 9 14 y n D(P ). We write this inversion as a hannel e: O T H W P. It satisfies, by onstrution, aording to the pattern in (5): d O d T d H d W e π d O d T d H d W π We an finally answer the original lassifiation question. The assumptions Sunny outlook, Cold temperature, High humidity, true windiness are used as input to the

16 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 16 inversion hannel e. This yields the probability of play that we are looking for: e(s,, H, t) y n. The resulting lassifiation probability of oinides with the probability of 20.5% that is omputed in (Witten et al., 2011) without the above hannel-based approah. One ould omplain that our approah is too abstrat, sine it remains impliit what these extrated hannels do. We elaborate the outlook hannel d O : P O. For the two elements in P {y, n} we have: d O (y) 2 9 s o r d O(n) 3 5 s + 0 o r. These outomes arise from the general formula (4). But we an also understand them at a more onrete level: for the first distribution d O (y) we need to onentrate on the 9 lines in Figure 1 for whih Play is yes; in these lines, in the first Outlook olumn, 2 out of 9 entries are Sunny, 4 out of 9 are Overast, and 3 out of 9 are Rainy. This orresponds to the above first distribution d O (y). Similarly, the seond distribution d O (n) aptures the Outlook for the 5 lines where Play is no: 3 out of 5 are Sunny and 2 out of 5 are Rainy. 5. Almost equality of hannels This setion explains how the standard notion of equal up to negligible sets or equal almost everywhere (with respet to a measure) an be expressed abstratly using string diagrams. Via this equality relation Bayesian inversion an be haraterised very neatly, following (Cler et al., 2017). We onsider an affine CD-ategory, ontinuing in the setting of Setion 3. Definition 5.1. Let, d: be two parallel hannels, and : I be a state on their domain. We say that is -almost equal to d, written as d if d. It is obvious that is an equivalene relation on hannels of type. When S is a set of arrows of type, we write S/ for the quotient S/. To put it more intuitively, we have d iff and d an be identified whenever the input wires are onneted to, possibly through opiers. For instane, using the assoiativity This outome has been alulated with the tool EfProb (Cho and Jaobs, 2017) that an do both disintegration and inversion.

17 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 17 and ommutativity of opiers, by d we may reason as: d d. In partiular, d if and only if d. Now the following is an obvious onsequene from the definition. Proposition 5.2. If both, d: are disintegrations of a joint state : I, then 1 d, where 1 : I is the first marginal of. For hannels f, g : D( ) and a state D() in Kl(D), it is easy to see that f g if and only if f(x)(y) (x) g(x)(y) (x) for all x and y if and only if f(x) g(x) for any x with (x) 0. Almost equality in Kl(G) is less trivial but haraterised in an expeted way. Proposition 5.3. Let f, g : G( ) be hannels and µ G() a state in Kl(G). Then f µ g if and only if for any B Σ, f( )(B) g( )(B) µ-almost everywhere. Proof. By expanding the definition, f µ g if and only if f(x)(b) µ(dx) g(x)(b) µ(dx) A for all A Σ and B Σ. This is equivalent to f( )(B) g( )(B) µ-almost everywhere for all B Σ, see (Fremlin, 2000, 131H). Almost-everywhere equality of probability kernels f, g : G( ) is often formulated by the stronger ondition that f g µ-almost everywhere. The next proposition shows that the stronger variant is equivalent under a reasonable assumption (any standard Borel spae is ountably generated, for example). Proposition 5.4. In the setting of the previous proposition, additionally assume that the measurable spae is ountably generated. Then f µ g if and only if f g µ-almost everywhere. Proof. Let the -algebra Σ on be generated by a ountable family (B n ) n. We may assume that (B n ) n is a π-system, i.e. a family losed under binary intersetions. Let A n {x f(x)(b n ) g(x)(b n )}, and A n A n. Eah A n is µ-onegligible, and thus A is µ-onegligible. For eah x A, we have f(x)(b n ) g(x)(b n ) for all n. By appliation of the Dynkin π-λ theorem, it follows that f(x) g(x). Therefore f g µ-almost everywhere. A

18 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 18 We an now present a fundamental result from (Cler et al., 2017, 3.3) in our abstrat setting. Let C be an affine CD-ategory and (I C) be the omma (oslie) ategory. Objets in (I C) are states in C, formally pairs (, ) of objets C and states : I. Arrows from (, ) to (, τ) are state-preserving hannels, namely : in C satisfying τ. A joint state (, ) (I C) is alled a oupling of two states (, ), (, τ) (I C) if and τ. We write Coupl((, ), (, τ)) for the set of ouplings of (, ) and (, τ). Theorem 5.5. Let C be an affine CD-ategory that admits disintegration. For eah pair of states (, ), (, τ) (I C), there is the following bijetion: (I C) ( (, ), (, τ) ) / Coupl((, ), (, τ)) Proof. For eah (I C) ( (, ), (, τ) ), we define a joint state I to be the integration of and as below, for whih we use the following ad ho notation: : It is easy to hek that is a oupling of and τ. For two hannels, d:, we have d if and only if d, by the definition of. This means the mapping, (I C) ( (, ), (, τ) ) / Coupl((, ), (, τ)) is well-defined and injetive. To prove the surjetivity let (, ) Coupl((, ), (, τ)). Let : be a disintegration of. Then is state-preserving sine τ Moreover we have, as desired. Via the symmetry we have the obvious bijetion Coupl((, ), (, τ)) Coupl((, τ), (, )). This immediately gives the following orollary. Corollary 5.6. Let C be an affine CD-ategory that admits disintegration. For any states (, ), (, τ) (I C) we have (I C) ( (, ), (, τ) ) / (I C) ( (, τ), (, ) ) /τ The bijetion sends a hannel : to a Bayesian inversion d: for along.

19 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 19 Theorem 2 of (Cler et al., 2017) is obtained as an instane, for the ategory pkrn sb. This bijetive orrespondene yields a dagger ( ) funtor on (a suitable quotient of) the omma ategory (I C) as noted by the authors of (Cler et al., 2017). Strong almost equality Unfortunately, the almost equality defined above is not the most useful notion for equational reasoning between string diagrams. Indeed, later in the proofs of Proposition 6.4 and Theorem 8.3 we enounter situations where we need a stronger notion of almost equality. We define the stronger one as follows. Definition 5.7. Let, d: be hannels and : I be a state. We say that is strongly -almost equal to d if d holds for any : I suh that is the first marginal of, that is:. Notie that strong almost quality implies almost quality, via the following : :. The good news is that the onverse often holds too. We say that an affine CD-ategory admits equality strengthening if is strongly -almost equal to d whenever d, i.e. is -almost equal to d. We present two propositions that guarantee this property. Proposition 5.8. If an affine CD-ategory admits disintegration, then it admits equality strengthening. Proof. Suppose that d holds for a state : I and for hannels, d:. Let : I be a state whose first marginal is. We an disintegrate as in: e. Then we have e d e d.

20 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 20 Therefore is strongly -almost equal to d. Reall that Kl(G) does not admit disintegration. Nevertheless, it admits equality strengthening. Proposition 5.9. The ategory Kl(G) admits equality strengthening. Proof. Assume d for G() and, d: G( ). Let G( ) be a probability measure whose first marginal is, i.e. (π 1 ) (). We need to prove ( η ) (d η ), whih is equivalent to: (x)(b)1 C (z) (d(x, z)) d(x)(b)1 C (z) (d(x, z)) (7) for all B Σ and C Σ. Using (x)(b)1c (z) d(x)(b)1 C (z) (x)(b) d(x)(b) 1C (z) (x)(b) d(x)(b), we have 0, ( (x)(b)1c (z) d(x)(b)1 C (z) ) (d(x, z)) (x)(b)1c (z) d(x)(b)1 C (z) (d(x, z)) (x)(b) d(x)(b) (d(x, z)) (x)(b) d(x)(b) (π 1 ) ()(dx) (x)(b) d(x)(b) (dx) where the last equality holds sine ( )(B) d( )(B) -almost everywhere by Proposition 5.3. Therefore the desired equality (7) holds. 6. Conditional independene Throughout this setion, we onsider an affine CD-ategory that admits disintegration Disintegration of multipartite states So far we have onentrated on bipartite states exept in the lassifiation example in Setion 4. In order to deal with a general n-partite state : I 1 n, we will introdue several notations and onventions in Definitions 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 below; they are in line with standard pratie in probability theory. In the onventions, an n-partite state, as below, is fixed, and used impliitly n

21 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 21 Definition 6.1. When we write i1 i2... ik where i 1,..., i k are distint, it denotes the state I i1 ik obtained from by marginalisation and permutation of wires (if neessary). Let us give a ouple of examples, for n : : We permute wires via a ombination of rossing. This is unambiguous by the oherene theorem. Below we will use symbols,,, W,... to denote not only a single wire i but also multiple wires i j. Disintegrations more general than in the bipartite ase are now introdued as follows. Definition 6.2. For i1 ik and j1 jl, with all i 1,..., i k, j 1,..., j l distint, a disintegration is defined to be a disintegration of, the marginal state given by the previous onvention. We denote the disintegration simply as on the left below, By definition, it must satisfy the equation on the right above. Let us give an example. The disintegration on the left below is defined by the equation on the right More speifially, assuming n 5 and expanding the notation for marginals, the equation

22 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 22 is: Note that disintegrations need not be unique. Thus when we write, we in fat hoose one of them. Nevertheless, suh disintegrations are unique up to almost-equality with respet to, whih is good enough for our purpose. Finally we make a onvention about almost equality (Definition 5.1). Definition 6.3. Let S and T be string diagrams of type that are made from marginals and disintegrations of as defined in Definitions 6.1 and 6.2. When we say S is almost equal to T (or write S T ) without referene to a state, it means that S is almost equal to T with respet to the state. We shall make use of the following auxiliary equations involving disarding and omposition of disintegrations. Proposition 6.4. In the onventions and notations above, the following hold. 1 2 W W Proof. By the definition of almost equality, 1 is proved by:.

23 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 23 Similarly, we prove 2 as follows. W W W W W W W The marked equality holds by strong almost equality, see Proposition 5.8. The equations orrespond respetively to y P(x, y z) P(x z) and P(x y, z) P(z y, w) P(x, z y, w) in disrete probability. Remark 6.5. We here keep our notation somewhat informal, e.g. using symbols,,,... as a sort of meta-variables. We refer to (Joyal and Street, 1991; Selinger, 2010) for more formal aspets of string diagrams Conditional independene We ontinue using the notations in the previous subsetion. Reall that we fix an n-partite state n and use symbols,,, W,... to denote a wire i or multiple wires i j. We now introdue the notion of onditional independene. Although it is defined with respet to the underlying state, we leave the state impliit, like an underlying probability spae Ω in onventional probability theory. Definition 6.6. Let,, denote distint wires. Then we say and are onditionally independent given, written as, if. The definition is analogous to the ondition P(x, y z) P(x z) P(y z) in disrete

24 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 24 probability. Indeed our definition oinides with the usual onditional independene, as explained below. Example 6.7. In Kl(D), let : D(), : D( ), : D( ) be disintegrations of some joint state, say D( ). Let D() be the marginal on. Then if and only if (z)(x, y) (z)(x) (z)(y) whenever (z) 0 for all x, y and z. If we write P(x, y z) (z)(x, y), P(x z) (z)(x), P(y z) (z)(y), and P(z) (z), then the ondition will look more familiar: P(x, y z) P(x z) P(y z) whenever P(z) 0. Example 6.8. Similarly, in Kl(G), let : G(), : G( ), : G( ), and G() be appropriate disintegrations and a marginal of some joint probability measure. Then if and only if (z)(a B) (z)(a) (z)(b) for -almost all z for all A Σ and B Σ. The equivalenes in the next result are well-known in onditional probability. Our ontribution is that we formulate and prove them at an abstrat, graphial level. Proposition The following are equivalent. 3 4 As we will see below, onditional independene is symmetri in and. Therefore the obvious symmetri ounterparts of 3 and 4 are also equivalent to them.

25 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 25 Proof. By definition of almost equality, 1 is equivalent to :. We then have 1 2, sine the identity below holds by the definition of disintegration. Next, assuming 3, we obtain 4 as follows. 3 We prove 4 3 similarly. Finally note that the following equation holds.. From this 2 4 is immediate. Note that the ondition 3 of the proposition is an analogue of P(x y, z) P(x z). The other onditions 2 and 4 say that the joint state an be fatorised in ertain ways, orresponding to the following equations: P(x, y, z) P(x z) P(y z) P(z) P(x z) P(y, z). The proposition below shows that our abstrat formulation of onditional independene does satisfy the basi rules of onditional independene, whih are known as (semi-) graphoids axioms (Verma and Pearl, 1988; Geiger et al., 1990). Proposition Conditional independene ( ) ( ) ( ) satisfies: 1 (Symmetry) if and only if. 2 (Deomposition) W implies W and W. 3 (Weak union) W implies W.

26 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 26 4 (Contration) W and W imply W. Proof. We will freely use Proposition 6.9. (1) Suppose. Then ( ). This means. (2) Suppose W, namely: W W Marginalising, we obtain W W W W, by Proposition Thus W. Similarly we prove W. Finally, we prove 3 and 4 at the same time. Note that W implies W, as shown above. Therefore what we need to prove is that W if and only if W, under W. Assume W, so we have W W Then W W W

27 Disintegration and Bayesian Inversion 27 W W W This proves W if and only if W. The four properties from the graphoid axioms are essential in reasoning of onditional independene with DAGs or Bayesian networks (Verma and Pearl, 1988; Geiger et al., 1990). Conditional independene has been studied ategorially in (Simpson, 2018). There, a ategorial notion of (onditional) independene struture is introdued, generalising algebrai axiomatisations of onditional independene, suh as with graphoids and separoids (Dawid, 2001). We leave it to future work to preisely relate our approah to onditional probability to Simpson s ategorial framework. 7. Beyond ausal hannels All CD-ategories C that we have onsidered so far are affine in the sense that all arrows f : are ausal: f. We now drop the affineness, in order to enlarge our ategory to inlude non-ausal arrows, whih enables us to have new notions suh as salars and effets. Essentially, we lose nothing by this hange: all the arguments so far an still be applied to the subategory Caus(C) C ontaining all the objets and ausal arrows. The ategory Caus(C) is an affine CD-ategory, inheriting the monoidal struture (, I) and the omonoid strutures (, ) from C. Reall that hannels in C are ausal arrows, i.e. arrows in Caus(C). States are hannels of the form : I. We all endomaps I I on the tensor unit salars. The set C(I, I) of salars forms a monoid via the omposition s t s t and 1 id I. The monoid of salars is always ommutative in fat, this is the ase for any monoidal ategory, see e.g. (Abramsky and Coeke, 2009, 3.2). In string diagram salars are written as s or simply as s. We an multiply salars s to any arrows f : by the parallel omposition, or diagrammatially by juxtaposition: s f We all an arrow : I is normalisable if the salar : I I is (multipliatively) invertible. In that ase we an normalise into a proper state as follows. nrm() : ( ) 1 Effets in C are arrows of the form p: I; they orrespond to observables, with

28 K. Cho and B. Jaobs 28 prediates as speial ase. Diagrammatially they are written as on the left below. p p : p On the right the validity p of a state : I and a effet p: I is defined. It is the salar given by omposition. Note that effets are not ausal in general; by definition, only disarders are ausal ones. States : I an be onditioned by effets p: I via normalisation, as follows. p : nrm ( p ) ( ) p 1 p The onditional state p is defined if the validity p is invertible. Conditioning p generalises onditional probability P(A B) given event B, see Example 7.2 below. At the end of the setion we will explain how onditioning and disintegration are related. Reall, from Examples 2.4 and 2.5, that our previous examples Kl(D) and Kl(G) are both affine. We give two non-affine CD-ategories that have Kl(D) and Kl(G) as subategories, respetively. Example 7.1. For disrete probability, we use multisets (or unnormalised distributions) over nonnegative real numbers R 0 [0, ), suh as 1 x y + 3 z on a set {x, y, z,... } We denote by M() the set of multisets over R 0 on. More formally: M() {φ: R 0 φ has finite support}. It extends to a ommutative monad M: Set Set, see (Coumans and Jaobs, 2013). In a similar way to the distribution monad D, we an hek that the Kleisli ategory Kl(M) is a CD-ategory. For a Kleisli map f : M( ), ausality f amounts to the ondition y f(x)(y) 1 for all x. It is thus easy to see that Caus(Kl(M)) Kl(D). In fat, the distribution monad D an be obtained from M as its affine submonad, see (Jaobs, 2018). An effet p: 1 in Kl(M) is a funtion p: R 0. Its validity p in a state is given by the expeted value x (x) p(x). The state p updated with evidene p is defined as p (x) (x) p(x) p. Example 7.2. For general, measure-theoreti probability, we use s-finite kernels between measurable spaes (Kallenberg, 2017; Staton, 2017). Let and be measurable spaes. A funtion f : Σ [0, ] is alled a kernel from to if f(x, ): Σ [0, ] is a measure for eah ; and f(, B): [0, ] is measurable for eah B Σ. The -algebra on [0, ] is the standard one generated by { } and measurable subsets of R 0.