MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2485487689 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511546938.005

Junction Tree Representation

2002· book-chapter· en· W2485487689 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Xiang

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2002
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTree (set theory)Representation (politics)Computer scienceMathematicsCombinatoricsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chapter 3 has shown that, in order to use concise message passing in a single cluster graph for exact belief updating with a nontree BN, one must reorganize the DAG into a junction tree. Graphical representations of probabilistic knowledge result in efficiency through the exploration of conditional independence in terms of graphical separation, as seen in Chapter 2. Therefore, the reorganization needs to preserve the independence–separation relations of the BN as much as possible. This chapter formally describes how independence is mapped into separation in different graphical structures and presents algorithms for converting a DAG dependence structure into a junction tree while preserving graphical separation to the extent possible. Section 4.2 defines the graphical separation in three types of graphs commonly used for modeling probabilistic knowledge: u-separation in undirected graphs, d-separation in directed acyclic graphs, and h-separation in junction trees. The relation between conditional independence and the sufficient content of a message in concise message passing is established in Section 4.3. In Section 4.4, the concept of the independence map or I-map , which ties a graphical model to a problem domain based on the extent to which the model captures the conditional independence of the domain, is introduced. The concept of a moral graph is also introduced as an intermediate undirected graphical model to facilitate the conversion of a DAG model to a junction tree model. Section 4.5 introduces a class of undirected graphs known as chordal graphs and establishes the relation between chordal graphs and junction trees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.165 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207