Talk:Causal graph

Merge to Directed Acyclic Graph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Don't merge. AVM2019 (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The term Causal Graph appears to denote in narrower subject areas what is more generally known as the Directed Acyclic Graph. It is striking for me as a reader to find no mention or reference to Directed Acyclic Graphs in this article. It would make more sense to me if these terms were used interchangeably, thereby combining clear and precise physical intuition with the rigour of mathematical description. Of course, we are here not to change things, but to simply document them. Therefore, I appeal to experts in the respective subject areas to consider merging the articles, or, at the very least, editing this article to reflect that it refers to a subject-specific application of the concept known as the Directed Acyclic Graph. AVM2019 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. It denotes a graphical model, which is not just a graph, but a piece of information that describes both a graph and a probability distribution. And the illustrations in this article include bidirectional arrows, making it very clear that the graphs described in this article are not intended to be restricted to directed and acyclic graphs. Therefore, I oppose this proposed merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DE -- possibly this article should include some reference to the article directed acyclic graph, but they are not the same thing and it doesn't seem natural to cover this kind of model at that article. --JBL (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I find your arguments convincing, although it was easy for me to initially overlook the difference DE pointed at. I see that Wikipedia guidelines suggest allowing one week for the discussion, so I guess, I am not supposed to retract the merge proposal template at this time. AVM2019 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorret (denotes a graphical model not just a graph). Suggestion: merge with Bayesian network. Krauss (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge to Bayesian network

The term Causal Graph appears to denote the same general concept as Bayesian network. Krauss (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed the merge template for what I proposed. Please place a new one for the new merger proposal. See Template:Merge Regards, AVM2019 (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the merge template that proposed merging Causal model with Bayesian network/Causal graph, because Causal model § Bayesian network already explains the relation between Causal model and the subtopic of Bayesian networks in a way that does not appear to justify merging them. I left the merge template that proposed merging Bayesian network with Causal graph, as that merge appears justified. Biogeographist (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

No, they are not formally the same concepts. One can construct Causal Graph without invoking Bayesian Networks. Hence, I am not in favour of merging. --mcyp (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)