This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
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.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Spanning tree?
The page says: "Construct a junction tree from this (form a maximal spanning tree)". What is the relationship between a junction tree and maximal spanning tree? A5 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase in the parentheses implies the junction tree formation is similar to forming a spanning tree on the original graph, but that's misleading: to form a junction tree you first construct a hypergraph according to cliques in the triangulated graph, and then you construct a spanning tree on those supernodes. To answer your question in short, the junction tree is a maximal spanning tree, but not on the original graph (instead, it's on a graph constructed from the original graph). 128.31.34.229 (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan
Contact Michael I Jordan- he pretty much invented the junction tree and will be able to provide the background information for this page. His book, which covers it in Chapter 17, is due to be published in the next year or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.59.167 (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But didn't Lauritzen and Spiefelhalter invent it in their 1988 paper? Also, where are the references for Hugin and Shafer-Shenoy? 115.129.16.201 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Dmitry Kamenetsky[reply]
Lauritzen is the earliest use of tree decomposition for inference that I can see, but essentially the same algorithm has been reinvented many times and used earlier without being specifically applied to inference, for instance in Arnborg's 1985 paper "Efficient algorithms for combinatorial problems on graphs with bounded decomposability". Boedlander has an overviewYaroslav Bulatov (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]