BayesFusion Support Forum

Why and how would sampling help you verify the evidence? In that way that it varies the evidence too. Not important I think I understand you. Maybe you somehow relate the sampling to the evidence you provide, I don't think that's right. Maybe it helps if you see the inference algorithm you use as a...

I use GENIE just to build the structure of the net.
The parameter are set in the app.
The priors are calculated in real-time by in the starting time of the app. The evidence is then computed step by step and thereby set.

I can send it as private, not for the public.
You get a PN.

Yes, that means that as long as I'm not sure about my evidence, the sampling helps me to verify. So, in my model e.g. I have the prior of which colors are possible and how often. This is exact knowledge. The node for that has as much as states as possible colors. That means, I cannot set a single co...

let's see. overall: Load the net (all states of all nodes are uniform distributed). Set the algorithm for the inference set priors set evidences call UpdateBeliefs() Collect the meaningful targets and find the max posterior 1. Set evidence for a number of nodes (for how many nodes, do you set soft e...

but why are hard evidences not sampled? (in GENIE, not in SMILE there I'm in the beginning, you know )

OK case 1:{ int index=BNStorage[which]->theNet.FindNode("pxisColor"); if (index>=0){ DSL_node* node=BNStorage[which]->theNet.GetNode(index); std::vector<double> f; for (int i=0;i<13;i++)f.push_back(1.0-cutoffinput)/12.0); f[state]=cutoffinput; node->Value()->SetSoftEvidence(f); //proof nod...

I want to test the algorithms because I have to decide which algorithm I need for my application. If the sampling algorithms (one of them) are not that exact but faster than the exact solution, than I will probably use them. I have to proof it for a publication (paper) I cannot only say: believe me,...

OH, I'm sorry.
In my code its a real number not a variable.

I only posted it as variable, because I thought it explains itself better.

My fault.

Otherwise you are clearly right.

I'm very glad that you try to help me thanks for that

Should be ok.

I want to set the value for experimental usage as 1.0, 0.8, 0.6 and so on to look how "sure" I have to be to get the right target in the end.
The rest of the values should be uniform, but of course they have to sum up to 1.

yes

Okay, well. I now saved the net as xdsl. If I save the net which I use in SMILE after setting the a-priori informations (setDefinition), and then load the net into Genie, both nets work identically. So what is left... the setting of the evidence. As I cannot save it, I can't proof it in GENIE. Code?...

My evidence is measured by sensors. I am not really sure about the values. So to say, they are really "beliefs". E.g. some nodes are feeded by image processing. If my detectors say they found some green regions in an image, due to many effects, the number of regions and the real color can ...

Hi,

when I use the SMILE lib the outcomes of the targets vary just between 0.25 and 0.28. The most are very very close together.
In the GENIE application the values vary (with same evidence set) between 0.20 and 0.70.

Hi, well, I thought I have. :) But I really have problems in modeling or using my BN. I have evidence for two nodes of twenty measured, so I'm really sure about it. When I then use the sampling algorithms they variate my evidence values. This is what I don't understand. That's why I asked for the ab...