this paper deals with chain graphs under the classic lauritzen - wermuth - frydenberg interpretation . we prove that the regular gaussian distributions that factorize with respect to a chain graph @xmath0 with @xmath1 parameters have positive lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 , whereas those that factorize with respect to @xmath0 but are not faithful to it have zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 .
this means that , in the measure - theoretic sense described , almost all the regular gaussian distributions that factorize with respect to @xmath0 are faithful to it .
previously , it has been proven that for any undirected graph there exists a regular gaussian distribution that is faithful to it ( * ? ? ?
* corollary 3 ) .
a stronger result has been proven for acyclic directed graphs : in certain measure - theoretic sense , almost all the regular gaussian distributions that factorize with respect to an acyclic directed graph are faithful to it ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 3.2 ) .
therefore , this paper extends the latter result to chain graphs .
it is worth mentioning that we have recently proved in @xcite a result analogous to the one in this paper but for strictly positive discrete probability distributions with arbitrary prescribed sample space .
it is also worth noticing that a result analogous to the one in this paper has been proven in ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 6.1 ) under the alternative andersson - madigan - perlman interpretation of chain graphs .
there are two important implications of the result proven in this paper :    * the use of chain graphs to represent independence models in artificial intelligence and statistics has increased over the years , particularly in the case of undirected graphs and acyclic directed graphs .
however , there are independence models that can be represented exactly by chain graphs but that can not be represented exactly by undirected graphs or acyclic directed graphs . as a matter of fact , the experimental results in @xcite suggest that this may be the case for the vast majority of independence models that can be represented exactly by chain graphs . in other words , for most chain graphs , every undirected graph and acyclic directed graph either represents some separation statement that is not represented by the chain graph or does not represent some separation statement that is represented by the chain graph . as (
* section 1.1 ) points out , something that would confirm that this is an advantage of chain graphs for modeling regular gaussian distributions would be proving that any independence model represented by a chain graph can be represented by a regular gaussian distribution .
the result in this paper confirms this point .
* in the literature , there exist two graphical criteria for identifying independencies holding in a probability distribution @xmath3 that factorizes with respect to a chain graph @xmath0 : the moralization criterion @xcite and the c - separation criterion @xcite .
both criteria are known to be equivalent ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 5.1 ) . furthermore
, both criteria are known to be sound , i.e. they only identify independencies in @xmath3 ( * ? ? ?
* theorems 3.34 and 3.36 ) .
the result in this paper implies that both criteria are also complete for regular gaussian distributions : if @xmath3 is a regular gaussian distribution , then both criteria identify all the independencies in @xmath3 that can be identified on the sole basis of @xmath0 , because there exists a regular gaussian distribution that is faithful to @xmath0 .
the rest of the paper is organized as follows .
we start by reviewing some concepts in section [ sec : preliminaries ] . in section
[ sec : cg ] , we describe how we parameterize the regular gaussian distributions that factorize with respect to a chain graph .
we present our results on faithfulness in section [ sec : faithfulness ] . in section [ sec : equivalence ] , we present some results about chain graph equivalence that follow from the results in section [ sec : faithfulness ] .
finally , we close with some discussion in section [ sec : conclusions ] .
in this section , we define some concepts used later in this paper .
we first recall some definitions from probabilistic graphical models .
see , for instance , @xcite and @xcite for further information .
let @xmath4 be a finite set of size @xmath5 .
the elements of @xmath6 are not distinguished from singletons and the union of the sets @xmath7 is written as the juxtaposition @xmath8 .
we denote by @xmath9 the size or cardinality of a set @xmath10 , e.g. @xmath11 .
we assume throughout the paper that the union of sets precedes the set difference when evaluating an expression .
unless otherwise stated , all the graphs in this paper are defined over @xmath6 .    if a graph @xmath0 contains an undirected ( resp .
directed ) edge between two nodes @xmath12 and @xmath13 , then we write that @xmath14 ( resp .
@xmath15 ) is in @xmath0 .
if @xmath15 is in @xmath0 then @xmath12 is called a parent of @xmath13 .
let @xmath16 denote the set of parents in @xmath0 of the nodes in @xmath10 .
when @xmath0 is evident from the context , we drop the @xmath0 from @xmath16 and use @xmath17 instead .
a route from a node @xmath12 to a node @xmath18 in a graph @xmath0 is a sequence of nodes @xmath19 such that there exists an edge in @xmath0 between @xmath20 and @xmath21 for all @xmath22 .
the length of a route is the number of ( not necessarily distinct ) edges in the route , e.g. the length of the route @xmath19 is @xmath23 .
we treat all singletons as routes of length zero .
a path is a route in which the nodes @xmath19 are distinct
. a route is called undirected if @xmath24 is in @xmath0 for all @xmath22 .
a route is called descending if @xmath24 or @xmath25 is in @xmath0 for all @xmath22 . if there is a descending route from @xmath12 to @xmath18 in @xmath0 , then @xmath12 is called an ancestor of @xmath18 and @xmath18 is called a descendant of @xmath12 .
let @xmath26 denote the set of ancestors in @xmath0 of the nodes in @xmath10 .
a descending route @xmath19 is called a directed pseudocycle if @xmath25 is in @xmath0 for some @xmath22 , and @xmath27 . a chain graph ( cg )
is a graph ( possibly ) containing both undirected and directed edges and no directed pseudocycles .
an undirected graph ( ug ) is a cg containing only undirected edges .
the underlying ug of a cg is the ug resulting from replacing the directed edges in the cg by undirected edges .
a set of nodes of a cg is connected if there exists an undirected route in the cg between every pair of nodes in the set .
a connectivity component of a cg is a connected set that is maximal with respect to set inclusion .
hereinafter , we assume that the connectivity components @xmath28 of a cg @xmath0 are well - ordered , i.e. if @xmath15 is in @xmath0 then @xmath29 and @xmath30 for some @xmath31 .
the moral graph of a cg @xmath0 , denoted @xmath32 , is the undirected graph where two nodes are adjacent iff they are adjacent in @xmath0 or they are both in @xmath33 for some connectivity component @xmath34 of @xmath0 .
the subgraph of @xmath0 induced by @xmath10 , denoted @xmath35 , is the graph over @xmath36 where two nodes are connected by a ( un)directed edge if that edge is in @xmath0 .
a path @xmath19 in @xmath0 is called a complex if the subgraph of @xmath0 induced by the set of nodes in the path looks like @xmath37 .
the path @xmath38 is called the region of the complex . a section of a route @xmath39 in a cg is a maximal subroute of @xmath39 that only contains undirected edges .
a section @xmath40 of @xmath39 is a collider section of @xmath39 if @xmath37 is a subroute of @xmath39 .
furthermore , a route @xmath39 in a cg is said to be superactive with respect to @xmath41 when    * every collider section of @xmath39 has some node in @xmath42 , and * every other section of @xmath39 has no node in @xmath42 .
a set @xmath10 is complete in an ug @xmath0 if there is an undirected edge in @xmath0 between every pair of distinct nodes in @xmath36 .
we denote the set of complete sets in @xmath0 by @xmath43 .
we treat all singletons as complete sets and , thus , they are included in @xmath43 .
let @xmath44 denote a column vector of random variables and @xmath45 @xmath46 its subvector @xmath47 .
we use upper - case letters to denote random variables and the same letters in lower - case to denote their states .
unless otherwise stated , all the probability distributions in this paper are defined on ( state space ) @xmath48 .
let @xmath36 , @xmath49 and @xmath42 denote three disjoint subsets of @xmath6 .
we denote by @xmath50 that @xmath45 is independent of @xmath51 given @xmath52 in a probability distribution @xmath3 .
likewise , we denote by @xmath53 that @xmath36 is separated from @xmath49 given @xmath42 in a cg @xmath0 .
specifically , @xmath53 holds when there is no route in @xmath0 from a node in @xmath36 to a node in @xmath49 that is superactive with respect to @xmath42 .
this is equivalent to say that @xmath53 holds when every path in @xmath54 from a node in @xmath36 to a node in @xmath49 has some node in @xmath42 .
the independence model represented by a cg @xmath0 is the set of separation statements @xmath53 .
we say that a probability distribution @xmath3 is markovian with respect to a cg @xmath0 when @xmath50 if @xmath53 for all @xmath36 , @xmath49 and @xmath42 disjoint subsets of @xmath6 .
we say that @xmath3 is faithful to @xmath0 when @xmath50 iff @xmath53 for all @xmath36 , @xmath49 and @xmath42 disjoint subsets of @xmath6 .
we denote by @xmath55 and @xmath56 that @xmath50 and @xmath53 do not hold , respectively .
we now recall some results from matrix theory .
see , for instance , @xcite for more information .
let @xmath57 denote a square matrix .
let @xmath58 with @xmath59 denote its submatrix @xmath60 .
the determinant of @xmath61 can recursively be computed , for fixed @xmath62 , as @xmath63 , where @xmath64 denotes the matrix produced by removing the row @xmath65 and column @xmath66 from @xmath61 . if @xmath67 then the inverse of @xmath61 can be computed as @xmath68 for all @xmath69 .
we say that @xmath61 is strictly diagonally dominant if @xmath70 for all @xmath62 , where @xmath71 denotes absolute value .
a matrix @xmath61 is hermitian if it is equal to the matrix resulting from , first , transposing @xmath61 and , then , replacing each entry by its complex conjugate . clearly , a real symmetric matrix is hermitian .
a real symmetric @xmath72 matrix @xmath61 is positive definite if @xmath73 for all non - zero @xmath74 .
[ rem : inverse ] note that @xmath75 is a real polynomial in the entries of @xmath61 , and that @xmath76 is then the restriction of a fraction of two real polynomials in the entries of @xmath61 to the area where @xmath75 is non - zero .    finally , we recall some results about gaussian distributions .
we represent a gaussian distribution as @xmath77 where @xmath78 is its mean vector and @xmath79 its covariance matrix .
we say that a gaussian distribution @xmath77 is regular if @xmath79 is positive definite or , equivalently , invertible . in this paper ,
we often find more convenient to work with the inverse of the covariance matrix @xmath80 , which is also known as the concentration matrix or precision matrix . since @xmath81 , we thus often write @xmath82 instead of @xmath77 .
let @xmath36 , @xmath49 , @xmath42 and @xmath83 denote four disjoint subsets of @xmath6 .
any regular gaussian distribution @xmath3 satisfies , among others , the following properties :    * symmetry @xmath84 . * decomposition @xmath85 .
* intersection @xmath86 .
* weak transitivity @xmath87 with @xmath88 .
the following results have been proven in ( * ? ? ?
* sections 2.3.1 , 2.3.3 ) . for the sake of completeness ,
appendix a adapts the proofs to the notation used in this paper .
let @xmath36 and @xmath49 denote two disjoint subsets of @xmath6 .
let @xmath89 where @xmath90 is positive definite .
then , as shown in ( * ? ? ?
* section 2.3.1 ) and in appendix a , @xmath91 where @xmath92 , @xmath93 and @xmath94 are the following real matrices of dimensions , respectively , @xmath95 , @xmath96 and @xmath97 : @xmath98 @xmath99 and @xmath100 let @xmath101 and @xmath102 where @xmath92 , @xmath93 and @xmath94 are real matrices of dimensions , respectively , @xmath95 , @xmath96 and @xmath97 , and @xmath103 and @xmath94 are positive definite . then ,
as shown in ( * ? ? ?
* section 2.3.3 ) and in appendix a , @xmath104 is a gaussian distribution @xmath105 over @xmath106 where @xmath107 and @xmath108 moreover , @xmath104 is regular because @xmath109
in this section , we describe how we parameterize the regular gaussian distributions that factorize with respect to a cg .
this is a key issue because our results about faithfulness are not only relative to the cg at hand and the measure considered , the lebesgue measure , but also to the number of parameters of the regular gaussian distributions that factorize with respect to the cg at hand .
we say that a regular gaussian distribution @xmath3 factorizes with respect to a cg @xmath0 with connectivity components @xmath28 if the following two conditions are met ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 3.30 ) :    * @xmath110 where * @xmath111 where each @xmath112 is a non - negative real function .
let @xmath113 denote the set of regular gaussian distributions that factorize with respect to @xmath0 .
we parameterize each probability distribution @xmath114 with the following parameters :    * the mean vector @xmath78 of @xmath3 . * the submatrices @xmath115 and @xmath116 of the precision matrix @xmath117 of @xmath118 for all @xmath119 .
we warn the reader that if @xmath90 denotes the precision matrix of @xmath3 , then @xmath117 is not @xmath120 but @xmath121 .
it is worth mentioning that an alternative parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath113 is presented in @xcite .
the main difference between our parameterization and the alternative one is that we parameterize certain concentration matrices whereas they parameterize certain partial concentration matrices .
however , both parameterizations are equivalent .
we omit the details of the equivalence because they are irrelevant for our purpose .
we stick to our parameterization simply because it is more convenient for the calculations performed later in this paper .
note that the values of some of the parameters in the parameterization introduced above are determined by the values of the rest of the parameters .
specifically , for all @xmath119 , the following constraints apply :    * @xmath122 for all @xmath123 , because @xmath124 since @xmath117 is symmetric . * @xmath125 for all @xmath123 such that @xmath66 and @xmath126 are not adjacent in @xmath0 . to see it ,
note that @xmath66 and @xmath126 are not adjacent in @xmath127 .
consequently , any path between @xmath66 and @xmath126 in @xmath127 must pass through some node in @xmath128 or @xmath33 .
then , @xmath129 , which implies @xmath130 because @xmath118 is markovian with respect to @xmath127 due to the condition f2 above ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 3.30 , theorems 3.34 and 3.36 ) .
the latter independence statement implies @xmath131 and , thus , @xmath125 ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 5.2 ) .
* @xmath132 for all @xmath133 and @xmath134 such that @xmath66 and @xmath126 are not adjacent in @xmath0 , by a reasoning analogous to the one above .
hereinafter , the parameters whose values are not determined by the constraints above are called non - determined ( nd ) parameters . however , the values the nd parameters can take are constrained by the fact that these values must correspond to some probability distribution in @xmath113 .
we prove in lemma [ lem:121cg ] that this is equivalent to requiring that the nd parameters can only take real values such that @xmath115 is positive definite for all @xmath119 .
that is why the set of nd parameter values satisfying this requirement are hereinafter called the nd parameter space for @xmath113 .
we do not work out the inequalities defining the nd parameter space because these are irrelevant for our purpose .
the number of nd parameters is what we call the dimension of @xmath0 , and we denote it as @xmath1 . specifically , @xmath135 where @xmath136 is the number of edges in @xmath0 :    * @xmath137 due to @xmath78 . *
@xmath137 due to @xmath138 for all @xmath119 and @xmath133 . *
@xmath136 due to the entries below the diagonal of @xmath115 that are not identically zero and the entries of @xmath116 that are not identically zero for all @xmath119 . to see this , recall from the constraints c1-c3 above that there is one entry below the diagonal in some @xmath115 that is not identically zero for each undirected edge in @xmath0 , and one entry in some @xmath116
that is not identically zero for each directed edge in @xmath0 .
[ lem:121cg ] let @xmath0 be a cg .
there is a one - to - one correspondence between the probability distributions in @xmath113 and the elements of the nd parameter space for @xmath113 .
we first prove that the mapping of probability distributions into nd parameter values is injective . obviously , any probability distribution in @xmath114 is mapped into some real values of the nd parameters @xmath78 , @xmath115 and @xmath116 for all @xmath119 . in particular
, @xmath115 takes value @xmath139 where @xmath90 is the precision matrix of @xmath3 .
then , that @xmath115 is positive definite follows from the fact that @xmath90 is positive definite @xcite .
thus , @xmath3 is mapped into some element of the nd parameter space for @xmath113 .
moreover , different probability distributions are mapped into different elements . to see it , assume to the contrary that there exist two distinct probability distributions @xmath140 that are mapped into the same element . note
that this element uniquely identifies @xmath141 by equations [ eq : bishop1a]-[eq : bishop1c ] for all @xmath119 , where @xmath142 and @xmath143 .
likewise , it uniquely identifies @xmath144 for all @xmath119 .
then , @xmath145 for all @xmath119 .
however , this contradicts the assumption that @xmath3 and @xmath146 are distinct by the condition f1 above .
we now prove in three steps that the mapping of nd parameter values into probability distributions is injective .    * step 1 * we first show that any element of the nd parameter space for @xmath113 is mapped into some regular gaussian distribution @xmath147 .
note that any element of the nd parameter space for @xmath113 uniquely identifies a gaussian distribution @xmath148 for all @xmath119 by equations [ eq : bishop1a]-[eq : bishop1c ] , where @xmath142 and @xmath143 .
specifically , @xmath149 where @xmath150 @xmath151 and @xmath152 in the equations above , we have assumed that the values of all the entries of @xmath115 and @xmath116 have previously been determined from the element of the nd parameter space at hand and the constraints c1-c3 above .
furthermore , note that @xmath148 is regular because , by definition , @xmath115 is positive definite .
clearly , @xmath148 can be rewritten as a regular gaussian distribution @xmath153 : it suffices to take @xmath154 where @xmath155 is a matrix of zeroes of dimension @xmath156 .
then , @xmath157 is a regular gaussian distribution by equations [ eq : bishop2a]-[eq : bishop2c ] .
likewise , @xmath158 is a regular gaussian distribution .
continuing with this process for the rest of connectivity components proves that @xmath159 is mapped into some regular gaussian distribution @xmath147 .
* step 2 * we now show that @xmath160 .
note that for all @xmath161 and any fixed value of @xmath162 @xmath163 @xmath164 @xmath165 \ldots ] d{x_{b_{i+2}}}]d{x_{b_{i+1 } } } = 1.\ ] ] thus , for all @xmath119 , it follows from the equation above that @xmath166 @xmath167 [ \int \prod_{l = i+1}^n q^l(x_{b_l } | x_{pa(b_l ) } ) d{x_{b_{i+1 } \ldots b_n } } ] d{x_{b_1 \ldots b_{i-1 } \setminus pa(b_i)}}\ ] ] @xmath168 @xmath169 moreover , for all @xmath119 , it follows from the equation above that @xmath170 @xmath171 d{x_{b_i}}\ ] ] @xmath172 d{x_{b_1 \ldots b_{i-1 } \setminus pa(b_i)}}\ ] ]
@xmath173 d{x_{b_1 \ldots b_{i-1 } \setminus pa(b_i)}}\ ] ] @xmath174 note the use of fubini s theorem to change the order of integration and produce equation [ eq : fub1 ] .
this implies that the inner integral in equation [ eq : fub2 ] becomes 1 .
consequently , for all @xmath119 @xmath175 due to equations [ eq : sum1 ] and [ eq : sum2 ] . therefore , @xmath176 and , thus , @xmath147 satisfies the condition f1 above .
moreover , @xmath177 satisfies the condition f2 for all @xmath119 .
we show this by induction on @xmath65 .
let @xmath178 denote the precision matrix of @xmath177 , and note that @xmath179 by equation [ eq : equalconditionals ] .
so , @xmath178 can be calculated from @xmath148 and @xmath180 via equation [ eq : bishop2b ] .
specifically , it follows from equations [ eq : bishop2b ] and [ eq : epsilon ] , respectively [ eq : delta ] , that @xmath181 and @xmath182=\omega^i_{b_i , pa(b_i)}.\ ] ] consequently , due to the constraints c2 and c3 above , @xmath183 for all @xmath184 such that @xmath66 and @xmath126 are not adjacent in @xmath127 .
moreover , @xmath183 is equivalent to @xmath185 ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 5.2 ) .
this implies that @xmath177 factorizes with respect to @xmath127 and , thus , that it satisfies the condition f2 above ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 3.30 , theorems 3.34 and 3.36 ) .
consequently , @xmath160 .
* step 3 * we finally show that different elements of the nd parameter space for @xmath113 are mapped into different probability distributions in @xmath113 .
assume to the contrary that two distinct elements of the nd parameter space for @xmath113 are mapped into the same probability distribution @xmath160 .
assume that the two elements differ in the value for @xmath186 , @xmath115 or @xmath116 but that they coincide in the values for @xmath187 , @xmath188 and @xmath189 for all @xmath190 .
there are two scenarios to consider :    * if the two elements differ in the value for @xmath115 or @xmath116 , then they are mapped into two different @xmath177 by equations [ eq : lambda1 ] and [ eq : lambda2 ] , because two regular gaussian distributions with different precision matrices are different
. however , this contradicts the assumption that the two elements are mapped into the same @xmath147 . *
if the two elements differ in the value for @xmath186 but they do not differ in the values for @xmath115 and @xmath116 , then the two elements do not differ in the value for @xmath191 either , because @xmath192 and we assumed above that the two elements coincide in the values for @xmath187 for all @xmath190 .
then , the two elements are mapped into the same @xmath193 but different @xmath194 in equations [ eq : delta ] and [ eq : gamma ] .
that is , the two elements are mapped into two different @xmath148 and , thus , to two different @xmath195 by equation [ eq : equalconditionals ] .
however , this contradicts the assumption that the two elements are mapped into the same @xmath147 .
[ rem : polynomial ] note the following three observations :    * for all @xmath119 , according to the constraints c1-c3 above , every entry of @xmath115 and @xmath116 is equal either to zero or to some nd parameter in the parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath113 . * for all @xmath119 , by remark [ rem : inverse ] ,
every entry of @xmath196 is a fraction of real polynomials in the entries of @xmath115 and , thus , a fraction of real polynomials in the nd parameters in the parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath113 .
thus , every entry of the matrices @xmath193 and @xmath197 in equations [ eq : delta ] and [ eq : epsilon ] is also a fraction of real polynomials in the referred nd parameters . *
every entry of the precision matrix of @xmath157 in the proof above is , by equation [ eq : bishop2b ] , a real polynomial in the entries of @xmath198 , @xmath199 and the precision matrix of @xmath200 , i.e. @xmath201 .
likewise , every entry of the precision matrix of @xmath158 in the proof above is a real polynomial in the entries of @xmath202 , @xmath203 and the precision matrix of @xmath157 , that is , a real polynomial in the entries of @xmath202 , @xmath203 , @xmath198 , @xmath199 and @xmath201 .
continuing with this process for the rest of connectivity components shows that every entry of the precision matrix of @xmath204 in the proof above is a real polynomial in the entries of the matrices @xmath201 , and @xmath193 and @xmath197 for all @xmath205 .
it follows from the observations above that every entry of the precision matrix of @xmath147 in the proof above is a fraction of real polynomials in the nd parameters in the parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath113 .
consequently , by remark [ rem : inverse ] , every entry of the covariance matrix of @xmath147 is a fraction of real polynomials in the nd parameters in the parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath113 .
moreover , note the following two observations on the latter fractions :    * each of these fractions is defined on the whole nd parameter space for @xmath113 : the polynomial in the denominator of the fraction is non - vanishing in the nd parameter space for @xmath113 because , as we have proven in step 1 in the theorem above , @xmath147 is a gaussian distribution .
* within the nd parameter space for @xmath113 , each of these fractions vanishes only in the points where the polynomial in the numerator of the fraction vanishes because , as we have just seen , the denominator of the fraction is non - vanishing in the nd parameter space for @xmath113 .
we now prove another result that will be crucial in the coming section .
[ lem : spacecg ] let @xmath0 be a cg of dimension @xmath1 . the nd parameter space for @xmath113 has positive lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 .
since we do not know a closed - form expression of the nd parameter space for @xmath113 , we take an indirect approach to prove the lemma .
recall that , by definition , the nd parameter space for @xmath113 is the set of real values such that , after the extension determined by the constraints c1 and c2 , @xmath115 is positive definite for all @xmath119 .
therefore , all the nd parameters except those in @xmath115 for all @xmath119 can take values independently of the rest of the nd parameters . the nd parameters in @xmath115 can not take values independently one of another because , otherwise , @xmath115 may not be positive definite .
however , if the entries in the diagonal of @xmath115 take values in @xmath206 and the rest of the nd parameters in @xmath115 take values in @xmath207 $ ] , then the nd parameters in @xmath115 can take values independently one of another . to see it , note that in this case @xmath115 will always be hermitian , strictly diagonally dominant , and with strictly positive diagonal entries , which implies that @xmath115 will always be positive definite ( * ? ? ?
* corollary 7.2.3 ) .
the subset of the nd parameter space of @xmath113 described in the paragraph above has positive volume in @xmath2 and , thus , it has positive lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 .
then , the nd parameter space of @xmath113 has positive lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 .
the two theorems below are the main contribution of this manuscript .
they prove that for any cg @xmath0 , in the measure - theoretic sense described below , almost all the probability distributions in @xmath113 are faithful to @xmath0 .
[ the : f1 ] let @xmath0 be a cg of dimension @xmath1 .
@xmath113 has positive lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 .
the one - to - one correspondence proved in lemma [ lem:121cg ] enables us to compute the lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 of @xmath113 as the lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 of the nd parameter space for @xmath113 .
moreover , the latter is positive by lemma [ lem : spacecg ] .    before proving the second theorem ,
some auxiliary lemmas are proven .
[ lem : subset ] let @xmath0 and @xmath208 be two cgs such that the undirected ( resp .
directed ) edges in @xmath208 are a subset of the undirected ( resp .
directed ) edges in @xmath0 .
then , @xmath209 .
note that a regular gaussian distribution factorizes with respect to a cg iff it is markovian with respect to the cg ( * ? ? ? * proposition 3.30 , theorems 3.34 and 3.36 ) .
then , @xmath209 because the independence model represented by @xmath208 is a superset of that represented by @xmath0 .
[ lem : chunk1 ] let @xmath0 be a cg such that    1 .
@xmath0 has a route between the nodes @xmath65 and @xmath66 that has no collider section , and 2 .
the route has no node in @xmath210 .
then , there exists a probability distribution @xmath114 such that @xmath211 .
the route in the lemma can be converted into a path @xmath39 between @xmath65 and @xmath66 in @xmath0 as follows : iteratively , remove from the route any subroute between a node and itself .
note that none of these removals produces a collider section : it suffices to note that if the route after the removal has a collider section , then the route before the removal must have a collider section , which is a contradiction .
consequently , @xmath39 is a path between @xmath65 and @xmath66 in @xmath0 that has no collider section .
therefore , @xmath39 is superactive with respect to @xmath212 : since the route in the lemma has no node in @xmath212 , @xmath39 has no node in @xmath212 either .
now , remove from @xmath0 all the edges that are not in @xmath39 , and call the resulting cg @xmath208 .
note that @xmath208 has no complex since @xmath39 has no collider section .
drop the direction of every edge in @xmath208 and call the resulting ug @xmath83 .
now , note that there exists a regular gaussian distribution @xmath3 that is faithful to @xmath83 ( * ? ? ?
* corollary 3 ) and , thus , @xmath211 because @xmath213 . note also that the fact that @xmath3 is faithful to @xmath83 implies that @xmath3 is markovian with respect to @xmath83 which , in turn , implies that @xmath3 is also markovian with respect to @xmath208 , because @xmath208 and @xmath83 have the same underlying ug and complexes ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 5.6 ) .
consequently , @xmath214 ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 3.30 , theorems 3.34 and 3.36 ) and , thus , @xmath114 because @xmath209 by lemma [ lem : subset ] .
[ lem : polynomial ] let @xmath0 be a cg . for every @xmath69 and @xmath210 , there exists a real polynomial @xmath215 in the nd parameters in the parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath113 such that , for every @xmath114 , @xmath216 iff @xmath215 vanishes for the nd parameter values coding @xmath3 .
let @xmath79 denote the covariance matrix of @xmath3 .
note that @xmath216 iff @xmath217 ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 5.2 ) . recall that @xmath218 with @xmath219 .
note that @xmath220 because @xmath221 is positive definite @xcite
. then , @xmath216 iff @xmath222 .
thus , @xmath216 iff a real polynomial @xmath223 in the entries of @xmath79 vanishes due to remark [ rem : inverse ]
. however , note that it follows from lemma [ lem:121cg ] and remark [ rem : polynomial ] that each entry of @xmath79 is a fraction of real polynomials in the nd parameters in the parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath113 .
recall also from remark [ rem : polynomial ] that the polynomial in the denominator of each of these fractions is non - vanishing in the nd parameter space for @xmath113 .
therefore , by simple algebraic manipulation , the polynomial @xmath223 can be expressed as a fraction @xmath224 of real polynomials in the nd parameters where @xmath225 is non - vanishing in the nd parameter space for @xmath113 .
consequently , @xmath216 iff the real polynomial @xmath215 in the nd parameters vanishes for the values coding @xmath3 .
we interpret the polynomial in the lemma above as a real function on a real euclidean space that includes the nd parameter space for @xmath113 .
we say that the polynomial in the lemma above is non - trivial if not all the values of the nd parameters are solutions to the polynomial .
this is equivalent to the requirement that the polynomial is not identically zero , because the nd parameter space for @xmath113 contains a @xmath1-dimensional interval in @xmath2 , where @xmath1 is the dimension of @xmath0 ( recall the proof of lemma [ lem : spacecg ] ) .
let @xmath226 denote an undirected route @xmath40 in a cg .
hereinafter , we denote by @xmath227 the route @xmath228 .    [
lem : chunk2 ] let @xmath0 be a cg such that    1 .
@xmath0 has a route @xmath229 where @xmath69 and @xmath226 is an undirected route , and 2 .
some node in @xmath226 is in @xmath212 or has a descendant in @xmath212 , where @xmath210 .
then , there exists a probability distribution @xmath114 such that @xmath211 .
the route @xmath226 can be converted into a path @xmath230 in @xmath0 as follows : iteratively , remove from @xmath226 any subroute between a node and itself .
note that @xmath226 does not contain either @xmath65 or @xmath66 because , otherwise , @xmath0 would have a directed pseudocycle between @xmath65 and itself or between @xmath66 and itself , which is a contradiction .
therefore , @xmath230 does not contain either @xmath65 or @xmath66 and , thus , @xmath231 is a path in @xmath0 .
note that the subroutes removed from @xmath226 contain only undirected edges .
therefore , every node that is in @xmath226 but not in @xmath230 is a descendant of some node in @xmath230 .
consequently , some node in @xmath230 is in @xmath212 or has a descendant in @xmath212 , due to the assumptions in the lemma .
we first prove the lemma for the case where some node in @xmath230 is in @xmath212 .
remove from @xmath0 all the edges that are not in @xmath231 , and call the resulting cg @xmath208 .
note that @xmath231 is a complex in @xmath208 and , thus , that @xmath232 .
let @xmath126 denote the closest node to @xmath65 that it is in @xmath230 and in @xmath212 .
we prove in this paragraph that there exists a probability distribution @xmath214 such that @xmath233 . by lemma [ lem : polynomial ]
, there exists a real polynomial @xmath234 in the nd parameters in the parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath235 such that , for every @xmath236 , @xmath237 iff @xmath234 vanishes for the nd parameter values coding @xmath147 . furthermore , @xmath234 is non - trivial . to see this , remove from @xmath208 all the edges outside the path between @xmath65 and @xmath126 , and
call the resulting cg @xmath83 . note that @xmath238 by lemma [ lem : subset ] . now note that , by lemma [ lem : chunk1 ] , there exists a probability distribution @xmath239 such that @xmath240 . by an analogous reasoning
, we can conclude that there exists a non - trivial real polynomial @xmath241 in the nd parameters in the parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath235 such that , for every @xmath236 , @xmath242 iff @xmath241 vanishes for the nd parameter values coding @xmath147 .
let @xmath243 and @xmath244 denote the sets of solutions to the polynomials @xmath234 and @xmath241 , respectively .
let @xmath1 denote the dimension of @xmath208 .
then , @xmath243 and @xmath244 have both zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 because they consist of the solutions to non - trivial real polynomials in real variables ( the nd parameters ) @xcite .
then , @xmath245 also has zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 , because the finite union of sets of zero lebesgue measure has zero lebesgue measure too .
consequently , the probability distributions @xmath236 such that @xmath237 or @xmath242 correspond to a set of elements of the nd parameter space for @xmath235 that has zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 because it is contained in @xmath246 . since this correspondence is one - to - one by lemma [ lem:121cg ] , the probability distributions @xmath236 such that @xmath237 or @xmath242 also have zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 .
this result together with theorem [ the : f1 ] imply that there exists a probability distribution @xmath214 such that @xmath247 and @xmath248 .
furthermore , as shown above @xmath232 and , thus , @xmath249 because @xmath3 is markovian with respect to @xmath208 , since @xmath214 ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 3.30 , theorems 3.34 and 3.36 ) .
then , @xmath250 by symmetry and weak transitivity and , thus , @xmath233 by decomposition .
finally , recall that @xmath126 is the closest node to @xmath65 that it is in @xmath230 and in @xmath212 , then @xmath251 and thus @xmath252 because @xmath3 is markovian with respect to @xmath208 .
then , @xmath211 by intersection on @xmath233 and @xmath252 .
consequently , we have proven that there exists a probability distribution @xmath214 such that @xmath211 .
moreover , @xmath114 because @xmath209 by lemma [ lem : subset ] .
we now prove the lemma for the case where no node in @xmath230 is in @xmath212 but some node in @xmath230 has a descendant in @xmath212 .
consider the shortest descending path between a node in @xmath230 and a node in @xmath212 .
let @xmath253 and @xmath126 denote the initial and final nodes of the path , i.e. @xmath254 .
remove from @xmath0 all the edges that are not in @xmath231 or in the path between @xmath253 and @xmath126 , and call the resulting cg @xmath208 .
note that @xmath231 is a complex in @xmath208 and , thus , that @xmath232 .
therefore , we can follow the same steps as above to prove that there exists a probability distribution @xmath214 such that @xmath233 . finally , recall that there is no path between @xmath65 and any node in @xmath255 in @xmath208 , then @xmath251 and thus @xmath252 because @xmath3 is markovian with respect to @xmath208 .
then , @xmath211 by intersection on @xmath233 and @xmath252 .
consequently , we have proven that there exists a probability distribution @xmath214 such that @xmath211 .
moreover , @xmath114 because @xmath209 by lemma [ lem : subset ] .
[ lem : non - trivial ] let @xmath0 be a cg such that @xmath256 , where @xmath69 and @xmath210 .
then , there exists a probability distribution @xmath114 such that @xmath211 .
we prove the lemma in two steps . in the first step , we introduce some notation that we use in the second step , the actual proof of the lemma .
* step 1 * given a route @xmath39 in a cg @xmath208 , we define @xmath257 as the cg resulting from removing from @xmath208 all the edges that are not in @xmath39 .
we define the level of a node in @xmath208 as the index of the connectivity component the node belongs to .
we define the dlength of a route as the number of distinct edges in the route .
note the difference between the dlength and the length of a route : the former counts edges without repetition and the latter with repetition ( recall section [ sec : preliminaries ] ) .
we say that a route is dshorter than another route if the former has smaller dlength than the latter .
likewise , we say that a route is dshortest if no other route is dshorter than it .
let @xmath258 denote any total order of the nodes in the cg @xmath208 .
let @xmath259 denote any total order of all the routes between two nodes in @xmath208 . finally ,
if @xmath260 where @xmath261 and @xmath262 , then we define @xmath263 as follows :
* if there is a route in @xmath208 like that in lemma [ lem : chunk1 ] or [ lem : chunk2 ] for @xmath264 , @xmath265 and @xmath266 , then we define @xmath267 . * otherwise , we define recursively @xmath268 , where @xmath39 and @xmath126 are selected as follows .
let @xmath269 denote the set of routes between @xmath270 and @xmath271 in @xmath208 that are superactive with respect to @xmath272 .
let @xmath273 denote the dshortest routes in @xmath269 .
let @xmath274 denote the shortest routes in @xmath273 .
let @xmath39 denote the route in @xmath274 that comes first in @xmath259 .
we call @xmath39 the splitting route
. furthermore , let @xmath42 denote the set of nodes in @xmath39 but not in @xmath275 that have minimal level in @xmath257 .
let @xmath126 denote the node in @xmath42 that comes first in @xmath258 .
note that the only point with @xmath259 and @xmath258 is to select @xmath39 and @xmath126 unambiguously .
note that we have implicitly assumed in the definition s2 that @xmath42 is non - empty .
we now prove that this is always true .
assume to the contrary that @xmath42 is empty .
this means that all the nodes in @xmath39 are in @xmath275 . since the definition s1 did not apply , @xmath39 must have some collider section @xmath226 .
moreover , @xmath276 is a subroute of @xmath39 : if @xmath277 ( resp .
@xmath278 ) then @xmath279 ( resp .
@xmath280 ) must be outside @xmath272 for @xmath39 to be superactive with respect to @xmath272 , which contradicts the assumption that all the nodes in @xmath39 are in @xmath275
. moreover , some node in @xmath226 must be in @xmath272 for @xmath39 to be superactive with respect to @xmath272 .
however , this implies that @xmath281 is a route that satisfies the requirements of the definition s1 , which is a contradiction .
finally , we prove that @xmath282 and @xmath283 in the definition s2 are well - defined .
let @xmath284 denote the subroute of @xmath39 between the first occurrences of @xmath270 and @xmath126 in @xmath39 when going from @xmath270 to @xmath271 .
note that if @xmath39 contains @xmath126 only in non - collider sections , then none of the other nodes in those sections can be in @xmath272 for @xmath39 to be superactive with respect to @xmath272 and , thus , @xmath284 is a route between @xmath270 and @xmath126 in @xmath257 that is superactive with respect to @xmath272 and , thus , @xmath285 and , thus , @xmath282 is defined .
we now prove that @xmath39 contains @xmath126 only in non - collider sections .
assume the contrary and let @xmath226 denote any collider section of @xmath39 that contains @xmath126 .
note that @xmath276 is a subroute of @xmath39 , because if @xmath277 or @xmath278 then there exists a node in @xmath39 but not in @xmath275 with smaller level than @xmath126 in @xmath257 , which is a contradiction .
moreover , some node in @xmath226 must be in @xmath272 for @xmath39 to be superactive with respect to @xmath272 .
however , this implies that @xmath281 is a route that satisfies the requirements of the definition s1 , which is a contradiction .
now , let @xmath286 denote the subroute of @xmath39 between the first occurrences of @xmath271 and @xmath126 in @xmath39 when going from @xmath271 to @xmath270 . by repeating the reasoning above with @xmath286 instead of @xmath284
, we can conclude that @xmath287 and , thus , that @xmath283 is defined too .
moreover , note that @xmath284 and @xmath286 have dlength equal or smaller than @xmath39 and length strictly smaller than @xmath39 .
therefore , the splitting routes for @xmath282 and @xmath283 are each either dshorter or shorter than @xmath39 .
this guarantees that the recursive definition s2 eventually reaches the trivial case s1 .
* step 2 * we prove the lemma by induction over the value of @xmath288 .
if @xmath289 , then there exists a route in @xmath0 like that in lemma [ lem : chunk1 ] or [ lem : chunk2 ] . therefore , there exists a probability distribution @xmath114 such that @xmath211 by lemma [ lem : chunk1 ] or [ lem : chunk2 ] .
assume as induction hypothesis that the lemma holds for any value of @xmath288 smaller than @xmath290 ( @xmath291 ) .
we now prove it for value @xmath290 .
recall that @xmath292 where @xmath39 is a dshortest route among all the routes between @xmath65 and @xmath66 in @xmath0 that are superactive with respect to @xmath212 , and @xmath126 is a node in @xmath39 but not in @xmath293 that has minimal level in @xmath294 . then , as shown in step 1 , @xmath295 and @xmath296 .
moreover , @xmath297 and @xmath298 are both smaller than @xmath290 .
then , by the induction hypothesis , there exist two probability distributions @xmath299 such that @xmath300 and @xmath301 .
we prove below that there exists a probability distribution @xmath302 such that @xmath211 .
note that @xmath114 because @xmath303 by lemma [ lem : subset ] .    by lemma [ lem : polynomial ]
, there exists a real polynomial @xmath304 in the nd parameters in the parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath305 such that , for every @xmath306 , @xmath307 iff @xmath304 vanishes for the nd parameter values coding @xmath147 .
furthermore , @xmath304 is non - trivial due to the probability distribution @xmath308 above .
similarly , there exists a real polynomial @xmath309 in the nd parameters in the parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath305 such that , for every @xmath306 , @xmath310 iff @xmath309 vanishes for the nd parameter values coding @xmath147 .
furthermore , @xmath309 is also non - trivial due to the probability distribution @xmath311 above .
let @xmath312 and @xmath313 denote the sets of solutions to the polynomials @xmath304 and @xmath309 , respectively .
let @xmath1 denote the dimension of @xmath294 .
then , @xmath312 and @xmath313 have both zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 because they consist of the solutions to non - trivial real polynomials in real variables ( the nd parameters ) @xcite .
then , @xmath314 also has zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 , because the finite union of sets of zero lebesgue measure has zero lebesgue measure too .
consequently , the probability distributions @xmath306 such that @xmath307 or @xmath310 correspond to a set of elements of the nd parameter space for @xmath305 that has zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 because it is contained in @xmath246 . since this correspondence is one - to - one by lemma [ lem:121cg ] , the probability distributions @xmath306 such that @xmath307 or @xmath310 also have zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 .
this result together with theorem [ the : f1 ] imply that there exists a probability distribution @xmath302 such that @xmath315 and @xmath316 .
note that these two independence statements together with @xmath317 would imply the desired result by symmetry and weak transitivity .
we prove below @xmath318 which , in turn , implies @xmath317 because @xmath3 is markovian with respect to @xmath294 , since @xmath302 ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 3.30 , theorems 3.34 and 3.36 ) .
assume to the contrary @xmath319 .
let @xmath284 denote any route between @xmath65 and @xmath66 in @xmath294 that is superactive with respect to @xmath320 .
note that @xmath284 must contain @xmath126 because , otherwise , @xmath284 would be a route between @xmath65 and @xmath66 in @xmath0 that is superactive with respect to @xmath212 and that is dshorter than @xmath39 , which is a contradiction .
furthermore , @xmath284 must contain @xmath126 only in collider sections because , otherwise , @xmath284 would not be superactive with respect to @xmath320 .
let @xmath226 denote any collider section of @xmath284 that contains @xmath126 .
note that @xmath321 is a subroute of @xmath284 , because if @xmath322 or @xmath323 then there exists a node in @xmath284 but not in @xmath293 with smaller level than @xmath126 in @xmath294 . since @xmath284 is a route in @xmath294
, this implies that there exists a node in @xmath39 but not in @xmath293 with smaller level than @xmath126 in @xmath294 , which is a contradiction .
note also that no descendant of @xmath126 in @xmath0 can be in @xmath212 because , otherwise , @xmath229 would be a route that satisfies the requirements of the definition s1 , which is a contradiction .
however , if no descendant of @xmath126 in @xmath0 is in @xmath212 , then @xmath39 must contain @xmath126 only in non - collider sections because , otherwise , @xmath39 would not be superactive with respect to @xmath212 .
the last two observations imply that @xmath65 or @xmath66 is a descendant of @xmath126 in @xmath0 which , together with @xmath229 , implies that @xmath0 has a directed pseudocycle between @xmath65 and itself or between @xmath66 and itself , because @xmath226 contains @xmath126 .
this is a contradiction .
[ the : f2 ] let @xmath0 be a cg of dimension @xmath1 .
the set of probability distributions in @xmath113 that are not faithful to @xmath0 has zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 .
note that the probability distributions in @xmath113 are markovian with respect to @xmath0 ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 3.30 , theorems 3.34 and 3.36 ) .
then , for any probability distribution @xmath114 not to be faithful to @xmath0 , @xmath3 must satisfy some independence that is not entailed by @xmath0 .
that is , there must exist three disjoint subsets of @xmath6 , here denoted as @xmath36 , @xmath49 and @xmath212 , such that @xmath324 but @xmath325 .
however , if @xmath324 then @xmath256 for some @xmath326 and @xmath327 . furthermore , if @xmath325 then @xmath216 by symmetry and decomposition . by lemma [ lem : polynomial ] , there exists a real polynomial @xmath215 in the nd parameters in the parameterization of the probability distributions in @xmath113 such that , for every @xmath160 , @xmath328 iff @xmath215 vanishes for the nd parameter values coding @xmath147 .
furthermore , @xmath215 is non - trivial by lemma [ lem : non - trivial ] .
let @xmath329 denote the set of solutions to the polynomial @xmath215 .
then , @xmath329 has zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 because it consists of the solutions to a non - trivial real polynomial in real variables ( the nd parameters ) @xcite .
then , @xmath330 has zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 , because the finite union of sets of zero lebesgue measure has zero lebesgue measure too .
consequently , the probability distributions in @xmath113 that are not faithful to @xmath0 correspond to a set of elements of the nd parameter space for @xmath113 that has zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 because it is contained in @xmath246 .
since this correspondence is one - to - one by lemma [ lem:121cg ] , the probability distributions in @xmath113 that are not faithful to @xmath0 also have zero lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 .
the following corollary , which follows trivially from theorems [ the : f1 ] and [ the : f2 ] , summarizes the results in this section .
[ co : f3 ] let @xmath0 be a cg of dimension @xmath1 .
the set of probability distributions in @xmath113 that are faithful to @xmath0 has positive lebesgue measure with respect to @xmath2 .
the space of cgs can be divided in classes of equivalent cgs according to criteria such as markov independence equivalence , markovian distribution equivalence or factorization equivalence .
as we prove below with the help of the theorems above , these criteria actually coincide .
this result is important because the classes of markovian distribution equivalent cgs have a simple graphical characterization and a natural representative , the so - called largest cg , which now also apply to the classes of equivalence induced by the other two criteria mentioned .
we also prove below that all equivalent cgs have the same dimension with respect to the parameterization introduced in section [ sec : faithfulness ] .    before proving our results
, we formally define the equivalence criteria discussed in the paragraph above .
recall that , unless otherwise stated , all the probability distributions in this paper are defined on ( state space ) @xmath48 , where @xmath11 .
we say that two cgs are markov independence equivalent if they represent the same independence model .
we say that two cgs are markovian distribution equivalent if every regular gaussian distribution is markovian with respect to both cgs or with respect to neither of them .
we say that two cgs @xmath0 and @xmath208 are factorization equivalent if @xmath331 . the corollary below proves that these definitions coincide .
[ co : me ] let @xmath0 and @xmath208 denote two cgs .
the following statements are equivalent in the frame of regular gaussian distributions :    1 .
@xmath0 and @xmath208 are factorization equivalent .
2 .   @xmath0 and @xmath208 are markovian distribution equivalent .
3 .   @xmath0 and @xmath208 are markov independence equivalent .
the equivalence of statements 1 and 2 follows from ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 3.30 , theorems 3.34 and 3.36 ) .
we now prove that statements 2 and 3 are equivalent . by definition ,
markov independence equivalence implies markovian distribution equivalence . to see the opposite implication , note that if @xmath0 and @xmath208 are not markov independence equivalent , then one of them , say @xmath0 , must represent a separation statement @xmath53 that is not represented by @xmath208 .
consider a probability distribution @xmath214 faithful to @xmath208 .
such a probability distribution exists due to corollary [ co : f3 ] , and it is markovian with respect to @xmath208 .
however , @xmath3 can not be markovian with respect to @xmath0 , because @xmath332 implies @xmath55 .
* theorem 5.6 ) gives a straightforward graphical characterization of markovian distribution equivalence : two cgs are markovian distribution equivalent iff they have the same underlying ug and the same complexes . due to the corollary above
, that is also a graphical characterization of the other two types of equivalence discussed there .
hereinafter , we do not distinguish anymore between the different types of equivalence discussed in the corollary above because they coincide and , thus , we simply refer to them as equivalence .
* proposition 5.7 ) shows that every class of equivalent cgs contains a unique cg that has more undirected edges than any other cg in the class .
such a cg is called the largest cg ( lcg ) in the class , and it is usually considered a natural representative of the class .
* section 4.2 ) conjectures that , for discrete probability distributions , the lcg in a class of equivalent cgs has fewer nd parameters than any other cg in the class . this would imply that the most space efficient way of storing the discrete probability distributions that factorize with respect to a class of equivalent cgs is by factorizing them with respect to the lcg in the class rather than with respect to any other cg in the class .
the corollary below proves that an analogous conjecture for regular gaussian distributions and the parameterization of them proposed in section [ sec : faithfulness ] would be false .
[ co : lcg ] all equivalent cgs have the same dimension with respect to the parameterization proposed in section [ sec : faithfulness ] .
let @xmath0 denote the lcg in a class of equivalent cgs .
let @xmath208 denote any other cg in the class .
recall that the dimensions of @xmath0 and @xmath208 with respect to the parameterization proposed in section [ sec : faithfulness ] are , respectively , @xmath333 and @xmath334 .
note that @xmath208 can be obtained from @xmath0 by orienting some of the undirected edges in @xmath0 ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 3.9 ) . then , @xmath335 and , thus , @xmath336 .
in this paper , we have proven that , in certain measure - theoretic sense , almost all the regular gaussian distributions that factorize with respect to a chain graph are faithful to it .
this result extends previous results such as    * ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 3.2 ) where it is proven that , in certain measure - theoretic sense , almost all the regular gaussian distributions that factorize with respect to an acyclic directed graph are faithful to it , and * ( * ? ? ?
* corollary 3 ) where it is proven that for any undirected graph there exists a regular gaussian distribution that is faithful to it .
there are a number of consequences that follow from the result proven in this paper :    * there are independence models that can be represented exactly by chain graphs but that can not be represented exactly by undirected graphs or acyclic directed graphs . as a matter of fact , the experimental results in @xcite suggest that this may be the case for the vast majority of independence models that can be represented exactly by chain graphs .
this is an advantage of chain graphs when dealing with regular gaussian distributions , because there exists a regular gaussian distribution that is faithful to each of these independence models . *
the moralization and c - separation criteria for reading independencies holding in the regular gaussian distributions that factorize with respect to a chain graph are complete ( i.e. they identify all the independencies that can be identified on the sole basis of the chain graph ) , because there exists a regular gaussian distribution that is faithful to the chain graph . * some definitions of equivalence in chain graphs coincide , which implies that the graphical characterization of markovian distribution equivalence in ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 5.6 ) also applies to other definitions of equivalence .
* for the parameterization introduced in this paper , all the chain graphs in a class of equivalence have the same dimension and , thus , their factorizations are equally space efficient for storing the regular gaussian distribution that factorize with respect to the chain graphs in the class .
this work is funded by the swedish research council ( ref . vr-621 - 2005 - 4202 ) and ceniit at linkping university ( ref .
we are thankful to prof .
jose a. lozano for discussions on this work .
in this appendix , we derive equations [ eq : bishop1a]-[eq : bishop2c ] .
our derivations are adaptations of those in ( * ? ? ?
* sections 2.3.1 , 2.3.3 ) to the notation used in this paper . a gaussian distribution for @xmath337 can be written as @xmath338 where @xmath78 is a @xmath137-dimensional mean vector , @xmath339 a @xmath340-dimensional covariance matrix , and @xmath126 a normalization constant .
note that @xmath341\ ] ] @xmath342 where @xmath343 is a constant , i.e. it is independent of @xmath344 . in the last equality above
we have used the fact that @xmath345 because @xmath90 is symmetric .
then , a gaussian distribution for @xmath337 can be written as @xmath346 where @xmath347 is a normalization constant .
let @xmath36 and @xmath49 denote two disjoint subsets of @xmath6 .
let @xmath89 where @xmath90 is positive definite .
if we regard @xmath348 as a constant , then @xmath349 @xmath350\ ] ] @xmath351 @xmath352 + k ' '' = - \frac{1}{2 } x_j^t \omega_{j , j } x_j + x_j^t [ \omega_{j , j } \mu_j - \omega_{j , i } ( x_i-\mu_i ) ] + k'''\ ] ] where @xmath353 is a constant , i.e. it is independent of @xmath354 . in the last equality above
we have used a reasoning analogous to that in equation [ eq : ap1 ] . then , @xmath355}}{k''''}\ ] ] where @xmath356 is a normalization constant , because @xmath348 can be regarded as a constant in @xmath357 since it is the value of the conditioning set .
consequently , @xmath357 is a gaussian distribution since it can be written in the form given in equation [ eq : ap2 ] . by equating the term that is quadratic in @xmath337 in equation [ eq : ap2 ] with the term that is quadratic in @xmath51 in equation [ eq : ap3 ] , we conclude that the covariance matrix of @xmath357 is @xmath358 . by equating the term that is linear in @xmath337 in equation [ eq : ap2 ] with the term that is linear in @xmath51 in equation [ eq : ap3 ] ,
we conclude that the mean vector of @xmath357 is @xmath359 = \mu_j - ( \omega_{j , j})^{-1 } \omega_{j , i } ( x_i-\mu_i)\ ] ] @xmath360 therefore , @xmath91 where @xmath92 , @xmath93 and @xmath94 are the following real matrices of dimensions , respectively , @xmath95 , @xmath96 and @xmath97 : @xmath361 @xmath362 and @xmath363    now , let @xmath101 and @xmath102 where @xmath92 , @xmath93 and @xmath94 are real matrices of dimensions , respectively , @xmath95 , @xmath96 and @xmath97 , and @xmath103 and @xmath94 are positive definite . then , @xmath364}}{k}\ ] ] where @xmath126 is a normalization constant .
note that @xmath365\ ] ] @xmath366 @xmath367 + k'\ ] ] @xmath368\ ] ] @xmath369 where @xmath343 is a constant , i.e. it is independent of @xmath370 . in the last equality above
we have used a reasoning analogous to that in equation [ eq : ap1 ] . by using this reasoning further and reorganizing some terms
we can rewrite the expression above as @xmath371\ ] ] @xmath372 @xmath373 then , @xmath374 can be expressed as @xmath375 where @xmath347 is a normalization constant .
consequently , @xmath374 is a gaussian distribution over @xmath106 since it can be expressed in the form given in equation [ eq : ap2 ] . as we did above , the precision matrix ( resp .
the mean vector ) of @xmath374 can easily be found by equating the term that is quadratic ( resp .
linear ) in @xmath337 in equation [ eq : ap2 ] with the term that is quadratic ( resp .
linear ) in @xmath106 in equation [ eq : ap4 ] .
specifically , @xmath376 where @xmath377 and @xmath378 @xmath379 we have omitted the details of the derivation of @xmath380 from @xmath381 , but it can easily be checked that @xmath382 equals the identity matrix .
note that @xmath381 is invertible because @xmath103 and @xmath94 are invertible and , thus , that @xmath374 is regular .
jose m. pea .
faithfulness in chain graphs : the discrete case .
_ international journal of approximate reasoning _ , 50:1306 - 1313 , 2009 .
peter spirtes , clark glymour , richard scheines .
_ causation , prediction , and search_. springer - verlag , 1993 .