• Bernoulli
  • Volume 24, Number 4A (2018), 2676-2692.

Equivalence classes of staged trees

Christiane Görgen and Jim Q. Smith

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text


In this paper, we give a complete characterization of the statistical equivalence classes of CEGs and of staged trees. We are able to show that all graphical representations of the same model share a common polynomial description. Then, simple transformations on that polynomial enable us to traverse the corresponding class of graphs. We illustrate our results with a real analysis of the implicit dependence relationships within a previously studied dataset.

Article information

Bernoulli, Volume 24, Number 4A (2018), 2676-2692.

Received: January 2016
Revised: February 2017
First available in Project Euclid: 26 March 2018

Permanent link to this document

Digital Object Identifier

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)

Zentralblatt MATH identifier

algebraic statistics Chain Event Graphs probability trees staged trees


Görgen, Christiane; Smith, Jim Q. Equivalence classes of staged trees. Bernoulli 24 (2018), no. 4A, 2676--2692. doi:10.3150/17-BEJ940.

Export citation


  • [1] Andersson, S.A., Madigan, D. and Perlman, M.D. (1997). A characterization of Markov equivalence classes for acyclic digraphs. Ann. Statist. 25 505–541.
  • [2] Barclay, L.M., Hutton, J.L. and Smith, J.Q. (2013). Refining a Bayesian network using a chain event graph. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. 54 1300–1309.
  • [3] Boutilier, C., Friedman, N., Goldszmidt, M. and Koller, D. (1996). Context-specific independence in Bayesian networks. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (Portland, OR, 1996) 115–123. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
  • [4] Coudouel, A., Hentschel, J.S. and Wodon, Q.T. (2002). Poverty measurement and analysis. In A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies: Core Techniques and Cross-Cutting Issues (J. Klugman, ed.) 27–74. Washington: The World Bank.
  • [5] Cowell, R.G. and Smith, J.Q. (2014). Causal discovery through MAP selection of stratified Chain Event Graphs. Electron. J. Stat. 8 965–997.
  • [6] Darwiche, A. (2003). A differential approach to inference in Bayesian networks. J. ACM 50 280–305.
  • [7] Drton, M., Sturmfels, B. and Sullivant, S. (2009). Lectures on Algebraic Statistics. Oberwolfach Seminars 39. Basel: Birkhäuser.
  • [8] Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J. and Shannon, F.T. (1986). Social and family factors in childhood hospital admission. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 40 50–58.
  • [9] Freeman, G. and Smith, J.Q. (2011). Bayesian MAP model selection of Chain Event Graphs. J. Multivariate Anal. 102 1152–1165.
  • [10] Geiger, D., Meek, C. and Sturmfels, B. (2006). On the toric algebra of graphical models. Ann. Statist. 34 1463–1492.
  • [11] Görgen, C. (2017). An algebraic characterisation of staged trees: Their geometry and causal implications. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Warwick, Department of Statistics.
  • [12] Görgen, C., Leonelli, M. and Smith, J.Q. (2015). A differential approach for staged trees. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 346–355. Springer.
  • [13] Görgen, C. and Smith, J.Q. (2016). A differential approach to causality in staged trees. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Graphical Models. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings 52 207–215.
  • [14] Heckerman, D. (1998). A tutorial on learning with Bayesian networks. In Learning in Graphical Models (M.I. Jordan, ed.). 301–354. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • [15] Lauritzen, S.L. (1996). Graphical Models. Oxford Statistical Science Series 17. Oxford: Clarendon.
  • [16] Lauritzen, S.L. and Spiegelhalter, D.J. (1988). Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B 50 157–224. With discussion.
  • [17] Leonelli, M., Görgen, C. and Smith, J.Q. (2015). Sensitivity analysis, multilinearity and beyond. Preprint. Available at ArXiv:1512.02266 [cs.AI].
  • [18] Pistone, G., Riccomagno, E. and Wynn, H.P. (2001). Algebraic Statistics. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 89. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
  • [19] Pistone, G., Riccomagno, E. and Wynn, H.P. (2001). Gröbner bases and factorisation in discrete probability and Bayes. Stat. Comput. 11 37–46.
  • [20] Shachter, R.D. (1988). Probabilistic inference and influence diagrams. Oper. Res. 36 589–605.
  • [21] Shafer, G. (1996). The Art of Causal Conjecture. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • [22] Smith, J.Q. and Anderson, P.E. (2008). Conditional independence and chain event graphs. Artificial Intelligence 172 42–68.
  • [23] Smith, J.Q., Görgen, C. and Collazo, R.A. (2017). Chain Event Graphs. London: Chapman & Hall. In preparation.
  • [24] Thwaites, P. (2013). Causal identifiability via Chain Event Graphs. Artificial Intelligence 195 291–315.
  • [25] Thwaites, P.A., Smith, J.Q. and Cowell, R.G. (2008). Propagation using Chain Event Graphs. In Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Uncertainty in Artifical Intelligence 546–553. Helsinki.