Talk:Markov blanket

Robotics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Science & education Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.

additional use?

There's also a more general meaning to "Markov blanket" used in at least one book on pattern recognition, or perhaps "additional use". When removing redundant variables one may start out with all variables, removing one at a time. Then the markov blanket of a variable, far as I recall, is a set of variables that make the given variable redundant. If the blanket is found, it can then be safely removed and it won't be needed after future iterations.

Co-parents

I would like to suggest that "children's parents" be replaced by the term "co-parents".

I think that this is technically more accurate since the term "co-parents" excludes the concerned node A that we wish to separate from the graph while "children's parents" involves also A.

Secondly, it is a single word and perhaps easier to remember and helps visualise the relationship of node A with the concerned nodes. Gugux (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Tennenrishin (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion, but is it already used in the litterature? LaurentPerrinet (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Conditional Independence

I changed $\Pr(A\mid \partial A\cap B)=\Pr(A\mid \partial A)$ to $\Pr(A\mid \partial A,B)=\Pr(A\mid \partial A)$ because the $\cap$ sign means intersection, and the intersection $\partial A\cap B$ only includes the node $B$. Instead we want the union of $\partial A$ and $B$, which would be $\partial A\cup B$, but I believe the comma is more standard notation. Sunbeam44 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just realized I was confusing sets of nodes with probability notation. Union would also be incorrect. However, using the intersection notation on variables is confusing-- this notation is typically used for an intersection of events. Since here we have variables and not events, the short-hand notation of comma is better in my opinion. Sunbeam44 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Infer "with"? Is "infer" technical jargon in opening sentence? If not it should be "from" (infer from) and not "with". If so, please link "infer" to a relevant article.

"In statistics and machine learning, when one wants to infer a random variable with a set of variables, usually a subset is enough, and other variables are useless."--209.204.41.233 (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)