Bayesian network simplification.

  • Thread starter Thread starter IttyBittyBit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bayesian Network
IttyBittyBit
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Let's say we have a bayesian network G. Consider a subset A of this network consisting of a set of nodes and all the edges between them. Assume, for the sake of simplicity, that all nodes in A are binary (either true or false) and strongly anticorrelated i.e. if anyone of the nodes in A are true, the probability of any other nodes in A being true is close to zero.

It seems it should be possible to 'approximate' A by replacing it with a single non-binary node with multiple states, each state representing one of the former binary nodes being true (and one state correspending to the occurence where none of them were true). I want to know if this is a common technique and, if so, what kind of approximation error bounds can be expected. Of course in the general case this might be a bit complicated but I would also be interested in any specialized cases (such as the case where the probability function of each node can be separated into the product of functions of each of the nodes).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Alright, since no one seems to have answered, what about the converse scenario? I.e. 'reducing' a many-state node into several binary nodes?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top