Re: parallelization of potential operations

Francisco Javier Diez (fjdiez@dia.uned.es)
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:18:36 +0100

> Our analysis (and also other's) shows that local conditioning is less
> efficient than the conceptually more simple method of parallelizing table
> operations (if the complexity in splitting up is close to linear in the
> number of processors used). Only, we do not know of any implementation of
> this (we thought) rather straight forward approach.
>
> /Finn

A third way to parallelizing the exact computation of probability in
Bayesian networks (besides table split up and local conditioning)
consists in exploiting the fact that, at each moment of the
propagation, there are usually several messages that can be computed
independently at different processors.

Further details can be found in
http://www.dia.uned.es/~fjdiez/papers/distrib1.html

The method is similar to Pearl's proposal for the polytree, but
differs mainly in three points:
--it can be applied to networks with loops (either via
clustering or via local conditioning);
--it does not need a processor for every node;
--the messages corresponding to a certain node may be computed by
different processors.

Javier Diez