Talk:Variational Bayesian methods

Statistics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Start‑class Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

This article feels like a mess

I'm not sure where to begin. I feel that I've wasted several hours trying to understand the material in this article, and that I would have saved hours had the article been more clearly written. For instance, it appears - and I'm still not 100% clear on this - that the notation $E_{i\neq j}\log p(Z,X)$ is to be understood as an expectation with respect to the variational distribution $q(\cdot )$ , as opposed to an expectation with respect to, say, the full conditional of $Z_{i}$ . So maybe better notation would be $E_{q}[\log p(Z,X)|Z_{i}]$ or something similar; we are apparently supposed to be integrating out everything EXCEPT $Z_{i}$ and doing so with respect to the variational distribution (the fact that we are supposed to be using the variational distribution to do this isn't mentioned anywhere). Maybe the notation used in this article is standard somewhere, but coming at this from a math stat/probability background I find it confusing.

Maybe these things are obvious to the authors of this article, but it still took quite a bit of effort to get. It also seems like much effort could be saved in calculations if the full conditional distributions of $p(Z|X)$ were derived first in the examples, since the full conditionals in the examples are well known. Then one would have $q(Z_{i})\propto \exp \left\{\log E_{i\neq j}p(Z_{i}|X,Z_{-i})\right\}$ since all the terms not associated with the full conditional can be absorbed into the normalizing constant. The examples would appear less daunting if shortcuts like this were used.

--68.101.66.185 (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equation Correctness

This edit added the claim that the equations in the section A more complex example are incorrect. I have replaced this line with a Dispute:about template. However, I am not familiar enough with the material to know if the equations are indeed incorrect, and if so, how to correct them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.40.103 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

obnoxious

Using the _same_ symbol to refer _both_ to a random variable and to the argument to its density function, is profoundly obnoxious and very bad in a number of ways. Maybe I'll come back to do some cleanup here later. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]