A Bayesian Network Model of Stromatolite Formation
-
Upload
harrison-bradley -
Category
Documents
-
view
22 -
download
0
description
Transcript of A Bayesian Network Model of Stromatolite Formation
11/5/2006 A Bayesian Network Model ... 1
A Bayesian Network Model of Stromatolite Formation
[Figure adapted from A. C. Allwood et al. Stromatolite reef from the Early Archaean era of Australia. Nature 441 (8 June 2006), 714-718.]
Jack K. Horner
Science Applications International Corporation
11/5/2006 A Bayesian Network Model ... 2
Problem statement
• Stromatolites are attached, lithified sedimentary growth structures, accretionary away from a point or limited surface of initiation.
• Whether stromatolites have a biotic origin is vigorously debated
• If biotic in origin, the oldest (~3.5 billion years before present) were created by some of the first forms of terrestrial life
• Because no single piece of evidence at present could decide whether stromatolites are of biotic origin, the debate depends significantly on how to interpret the “evidence as a whole”
• How do we rigorously represent the notion of the “evidence as a whole”?
11/5/2006 A Bayesian Network Model ... 3
Some requirements (Abstracted from Allwood et al., op. cit.)
• Cone surfaces have a consistent/inconsistent vertical depth• There are systematic differences/similarities between the
texture of the cone surfaces and the texture of the laminae between the cones
• The cones are heterogeneously/homogeneously spaced• The cones are absent_from/present_in deep water • The cone surfaces exhibit/don’t_exhibit 250-fold enhanced
rare earth element (REE) composition• The structure of the cone surfaces is consistent/inconsistent
with the mat structure of several biotic sources• At many sites, individual instances of a given type of cone
share/don’t_share common depositional characteristics, over an extended geographic region
11/5/2006 A Bayesian Network Model ... 4
Implementation (Bayesian network)[Origin is the only hypothesis variable, all others are evidence variables. P(Origin = Biotic | X = “upper value”) = 0.9, where X ≠ Types_syndepositional is an evidence
variable; else P(Origin = Biotic | X) ~ 0.1N, where N is number of types syndepositional. Argument from Allwood et al., op. cit., is shown.]
11/5/2006 A Bayesian Network Model ... 5
Some results (sensitivity of Origin to evidence variables)
Evidence Variable Mutual Information
Quadratic Score
Absent from deep water
0.53100 0.1600000
Similar to biotic mats
0.53100 0.1600000
Cone surface 0.53100 0.1600000
Enhanced REE 0.53100 0.1600000
Constant cone depth 0.53100 0.1600000
Non-uniform cone spacing
0.53100 0.1600000
Types syndepositional 0.24666 0.0766751
11/5/2006 A Bayesian Network Model ... 6
Discussion
• Many inference topologies are possible– at present, the literature does not motivate anything more
complicated than the model shown above– the Bayesian network method can naturally accommodate
more complexity if needed• Requirements do not uniquely determine the
conditional probabilities – this is a common feature of scientific explanations– the Bayesian network method allows us to rigorously
compare effects of probability assignments (e.g., results are almost identical if P(Origin = Biotic | X = “upper value on Slide 4”) = 0.7 (instead of 0.9)