Talk:Conditional independence

message: The first paragraph of this article says the same thing, three times. I am not sure what is the best way to simplify it, but it is confusing enough already.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.211.19 (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant Intro 

message: http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/BBNs/Independence_and_conditional_independence.htm
Davyzhu (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Examples Link 

message: I cannot verify that P(AUB|not C) in the first figure is equal to P(A|C)*P(B|C).  I count that P(AUB|not C) is 4/37, P(A|notC) is 12/37, and P(B|notC) is 12/37.  That doesn't work out.  Did I miss something?  76.8.64.166 (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic of Squares 

message: The section on Baysian networks is exteremly unclear, and poorly constructed. It is always a bad idea to begin with an example. The addition of the "frequentist" further confuses the section. Fresheneesz 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree -- it is always a GOOD idea to begin with an example! People are pretty good at generalising from a few worked examples, but most (even those of us with PhDs) find it difficult to understand things expressed as generalities. When I was teaching at a university I always started with an example and then went on to the general theory, and the students definitely approved of this technique. Unfortunately most textbooks do the opposite. 88.110.89.8 (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Baysian networks 

message: "Two random variables X and Y are conditionally independent given a third random variable W if for any measurable set S of possible values of W, X and Y are conditionally independent given the event [W ∈ S]." — This is incorrect. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it.  I'm not sure if we've got a good account of conditioning on a sigma-algebra.  There's a section in the article titled conditional expectation that treats the topic, but it's fairly terse and does not mention the role of the Radon–Nikodym theorem. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And please remove the obsolete "measurable set S of possible values of W". Yes, I know that such conditioning is not an easy matter; in fact, this is why I've created the Conditioning (probability) page. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  Now I did it myself. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  returning to these comments, as they look rather old: are these the basis of the "factual accuracy is disputed" tag on "Decomposition"? to be honest, i am unclear on what exactly is being disputed in the text that appears in the article, as the proofs ( as far as i can tell ) seem to be correct. the properties themselves are stated in Judea Pearl's "Causality", which is already cited in the sources. propose that we remove the "dispute" tag. ( it seems consensus might be complicated by the fact that one of the original posters here is deceased )Benjamin Schulz (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect definition 

message: Practically all rules of conditional independence are rubbish and meaningless (unless a definition is added, what it means, when to the left or right of the relation symbol two sets show up and are seperated by a comma).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.207.223.32 (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And now, after the edit by Ninjagecko of 21 October 2010, they are even more rubbish and meaningless than before. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Properties are rubbish 

message: I think the diagram is inadequate -- it's impossible to tell by looking at it which squares do or do not contain blue, or red. I can figure it out by referring to the footnote and using my prior knowledge of how this works, but that's no good for a reader who doesn't already know the material.  To me it seems that the only way to fix this would be to redo the diagram with each square labeled with one or more color abbreviations R, B, etc., ideally with the letter R itself appearing in red, the letter B itself appearing in blue, etc., with a white background. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -AlanUS (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Inadequate diagram

message: Can somebody please explain the mathematical notation used in this article?
71.178.164.165 (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical 

message: The lead needs to be rewritten, examples and discussion belong into the article body. Please refer to WP:LEAD. Paradoctor (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Conditional dependence is merely the absence of conditional independence. It makes as little sense to have a separate article on it as it would to have a separate article on linear dependence in addition to the one on linear independence. The article on conditional dependence was created relatively late, in 2012, after two previous submissions had been declined (see the revision history). The misguided thinking that led to the creation of the article is summarized in the last sentence of the initial version of the article: "Conditional dependence is different from conditional independence. In conditional independence two events which are initially dependent become independent given the occurrence of a third event."
The current content of the article on conditional dependence adds little to what we have at conditional independence, and some of it looks like original research. In my view, most of it could simply be deleted, but suggestions on what to keep and how to integrate it into conditional independence are of course welcome.
Joriki (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge [[conditional dependence]] into [[conditional independence]] 

message: This article should be unified (but not merged) with Independence (probability theory), and an expert is needed for that. What I mean is that the parts of Conditional independence that parallel Independence (probability theory) should be re-written to be as similar as possible. The main reason is that the current article is of lower quality. In particular, the current version claims that the two definitions are equivalent:
P(A \mid B, C) = P(A \mid C)
and
P(A,B|C) = P(A|C)P(B|C)
which is incorrect. The definitions are only equivalent when all the conditional probabilities are well-defined. Also, the proof of the claimed equivalence is wrong because of the division by P(B, C), which may be zero. In Independence (probability theory), this problem is somewhat mitigated by a remark that follows a similarly incorrect proof.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVM2019 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unification with "Independence (probability theory)", especially the definition section 

message: Under the section "Examples" and there under "Proximity and Delays" it says "Let events A and B be defined as the probability that person A and person B will be home in time...". The way it sounds it reads as if the events A and B are probabilities. However, events are not probabilities! Events are sets, they are subsets of the sample space. Events have a probability (as long as they are elements of the underlying sigma algebra) but they aren't probabilities themselves.
It would be more accurate to say "Let events A and B be defined as the fact that person A and person B will be home in time...". 2A01:C23:C46F:7E00:1805:A74B:9E63:F331 (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect phrasing