Extending Factor Graphs so as to Unify Directed and Undirected Graphical Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two most popular types of graphical model are directed models (Bayesian networks) and undirected models (Markov random fields, or MRFs). Directed and undirected models offer complementary properties in model construction, expressing conditional independencies, expressing arbitrary factorizations of joint distributions, and formulating message-passing inference algorithms. We show that the strengths of these two representations can be combined in a single type of graphical model called a 'factor graph'. Every Bayesian network or MRF can be easily converted to a factor graph that expresses the same conditional independencies, expresses the same factorization of the joint distribution, and can be used for probabilistic inference through application of a single, simple message-passing algorithm. In contrast to chain graphs, where message-passing is implemented on a hypergraph, message-passing can be directly implemented on the factor graph. We describe a modified 'Bayes-ball' algorithm for establishing conditional independence in factor graphs, and we show that factor graphs form a strict superset of Bayesian networks and MRFs. In particular, we give an example of a commonly-used 'mixture of experts' model fragment, whose independencies cannot be represented in a Bayesian network or an MRF, but can be represented in a factor graph. We finish by giving examples of real-world problems that are not well suited to representation in Bayesian networks and MRFs, but are well-suited to representation in factor graphs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".