Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Enhancing Bayesian Network Structural Learning with Monte Carlo Tree Search

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Monte Carlo tree search can be repurposed to search over variable orderings, and this paper shows that doing so raises the BDeu score of every standard Bayesian-network learner tested, sometimes above the score obtained from the true…

desk verdict A genuinely new MCTS-over-orders heuristic for BN structure learning, with reproducible code and plausible BDeu gains, but the evaluation misses a key control and only measures the objective being optimized. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01527 v1 pith:D5H7DIBM submitted 2025-02-03 cs.LG

Jorge D. Laborda , Pablo Torrijos , José M. Puerta , José A. Gámez This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords MonteCarloTreeSearchBayesiannetworkstructurelearningtopologicalorderBDeuscoreguidedrolloutHillClimbingGreedyEquivalentUCT
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a Monte Carlo Tree Search adapted to explore variable orderings—not network structures directly—reliably improves the Bayesian networks found by standard structural-learning algorithms. The method, MCTS-BN, builds partial orders of variables, completes each one with orders sampled from a base algorithm's learned network, and scores the result by running order-constrained Hill Climbing under the BDeu metric. On six real-world networks with ten datasets each, the authors report that MCTS-BN raises the starting BDeu score of every base algorithm used (GES, fGES, PC, HC). When seeded with GES orders, it even exceeds the score of Hill Climbing run with the true gold-standard topological order in four of the six networks. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as evidence that order-space search is a cheap, generic complement to DAG-space greedy search.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the MCTS tree over partial topological orders, driven by a modified UCT formula whose reward is the standardized normalized BDeu score (snBDeu) of an order-constrained Hill Climbing. Because random rollouts over n! orders are impractical for large networks, the paper introduces "guided search": topological orders sampled from the base algorithm's learned network are used both to complete partial orders during rollout (σ+ = σ concatenated with the projection of the sampled order over the remaining variables) and to fix the expansion order of actions at each node. This semi-randomized rollout is what makes the search feasible on networks of up to 1,041 variables, and it is the component that converts a generic MCTS into a structural-learning booster.

What would settle it

Compute held-out log-likelihood or edge recovery (e.g., structural Hamming distance to the gold-standard network) for MCTS-BN versus its base algorithms on the same ten datasets per network; if the higher training BDeu scores do not come with better generalization or better edge recovery, the paper's central benefit claim is refuted. Alternatively, a paired test across the ten datasets showing the BDeu gain over GES is not consistently positive would contradict the 'consistently beneficial' claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that optimizing the topological order is an effective lever for score-based Bayesian network structure learning, and that MCTS is a practical way to do that optimization at scale. In MCTS-BN each tree node is a partial variable order; an action appends one variable; and a rollout completes the order by concatenating the projection of a base algorithm's sampled order over the remaining variables. The completed order is handed to an order-constrained Hill Climbing, whose BDeu score—normalized by dataset size and standardized across the initial expansion—is backpropagated as the reward. The paper reports that this guided search consistently improves the starting BDeu score across all base algorithms and all six networks, that it narrows the gap when the base algorithm is weak, and that paired with GES it surpasses the score of Hill Climbing given a true topological order from the gold standard in 4/6 cases.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a higher score on the training data (the BDeu metric the method optimizes) means a better learned network; the paper offers no held-out likelihood, edge-accuracy check, or significance test to support that identification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On all six networks, every base algorithm's BDeu score increases after MCTS-BN refinement, so the method behaves as a generic score-boosting post-processor for order-based structural learners.
  • With GES as the seed, the final MCTS-BN network outscores Hill Climbing run under the true gold-standard topological order on four of the six domains.
  • Runtime remains practical because each rollout only executes a fast order-constrained Hill Climbing; the time added by MCTS stays modest relative to the base algorithm, and better base orders shorten it further.
  • The gains are largest from weak starting orders (HC, PC on large networks), but even then MCTS-BN rarely reaches the level of a strong GES seed, indicating the seed order quality sets a practical ceiling.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A plausible unstated corollary is that the order-search wrapper is score-agnostic: swapping BDeu for BIC or a held-out-likelihood criterion should preserve the mechanism, and we would expect similar score gains if order-constrained GES replaced order-constrained HC inside the rollouts.
  • The fact that the true topological order is beaten on training-data BDeu suggests that on finite samples the highest-scoring order is not the causal order; we would predict that under held-out evaluation the gap between MCTS-BN and the gold-standard order shrinks or reverses.
  • Because many rollouts complete different partial orders with projections of the same base order, the same complete orders are scored repeatedly; caching their BDeu values is an obvious optimization the paper does not explore and could cut runtime on the largest networks.
  • Seeding MCTS-BN with orders from several base algorithms at once, rather than one, is a natural diversity-increasing variant that the experiments do not test; it could make the search more robust when no single base algorithm is reliable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MCTS-BN, a Monte Carlo Tree Search approach for Bayesian Network structure learning. MCTS-BN searches over topological orders of the variables; for each partial order, a rollout is completed using a topological order sampled from a base structural learning algorithm (GES, fGES, PC, or HC), and a Hill Climbing procedure restricted to the resulting order is run to produce a network whose BDeu score serves as the reward. The method is evaluated on six bnlearn networks with 10 datasets each, reporting training-data BDeu scores and execution times. The central claimed result is that MCTS-BN consistently improves the BDeu score of the base algorithms and sometimes exceeds the score of HC constrained to a true topological order of the gold-standard network.

Significance. If the claims are supported, MCTS-BN would be a generally applicable wrapper that improves upon base BN structure learners at the cost of additional computation, with the notable strengths of a reproducible implementation (code and datasets released) and a clear algorithmic description. However, the evidence as presented is weakened by (i) evaluating only the same training-data BDeu score that MCTS-BN optimizes, (ii) lacking a control condition that isolates the UCT tree-search component from merely sampling many guided orders, and (iii) reporting no error bars, significance tests, or independent quality metrics such as held-out likelihood or structural accuracy. The paper makes no theoretical guarantees, and its contribution is empirical; therefore these evaluation gaps are load-bearing for the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1 and §4.3] The evaluation metric is the training-data BDeu score, which is exactly the reward that MCTS-BN maximizes (Section 3.2). The claim in Section 4.3 that 'MCTS-BN consistently proves beneficial' is therefore only a statement about within-objective score optimization on the training sample. No held-out likelihood, edge-level comparison to the gold standard, or error bars/significance tests over the 10 datasets are reported. Because a heuristic with 10,000 iterations and a favorable initialization would be expected to raise the training score even without discovering genuinely better structures, this evidence does not by itself establish improved structural learning. I request per-dataset results with variance, a significance test, and ideally an independent metric (e.g., held-out likelihood or structural Hamming distance to the gold standard).
  2. [§3.3] The experimental design never isolates the contribution of the MCTS tree-search mechanism. In the guided-search procedure, rollouts are completed by concatenating the current partial order with a projection of a base-algorithm order, and node expansions are also reordered according to that base order. A natural and necessary control is to compare MCTS-BN against an equally cheap procedure that samples random partial-order completions or simply samples many base-algorithm orders and runs order-constrained HC on each, keeping the best result. Without such a control, the reported BDeu improvements may be entirely attributable to 'try many guided orders and keep the best', and the specific UCT exploration-exploitation balance -- which is the paper's claimed novelty -- remains untested. This is a load-bearing issue for the central contribution.
  3. [§4.1] The comparison against 'the gold standard's upper bound' is not well defined. The paper runs HC restricted to a true topological order and calls this an upper bound, but because BDeu is computed on a finite sample, the true ordering need not yield the maximum possible BDeu for that sample -- a fact the authors themselves acknowledge in the same paragraph ('the gold standard may no longer be the optimal model for that data'). Thus the statement in Section 4.3 that MCTS-BN 'surpasses the gold standard's upper bound in 4/6 BNs' is not a meaningful achievement unless the reference point is described accurately. Please relabel this as one reference baseline and explain what its violation indicates.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3] In the definition of σ+, 'σ↓A i produces the projection of σi over A' appears to be a typo; it should read 'the projection of σ over A'.
  2. [§4.2] The Tetrad version is given as '7.1.2-24' in the text and 'v7.1.2-2' in the footnote; please harmonize these references.
  3. [§4.3 / Figure 5] Execution times are shown as averaged bars without error bars or a table of per-dataset values; given the 10 datasets, adding variance information would help assess the stability of the timing comparison.
  4. [§3.2] The choice of the exploration constant C = sqrt(2)/100 is motivated by 'a good balance', but no sensitivity analysis is provided. Since the paper highlights the difficulty of tuning MCTS parameters, a brief study of the effect of C on the results would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MCTS-BN is an empirical heuristic with an independent experimental claim, and its self-citations and BDeu overlap are not load-bearing.

full rationale

MCTS-BN is an empirical heuristic method; there is no derivation chain whose conclusion is equivalent to its premises. The only places where a circularity might be suspected are the use of BDeu both as the MCTS reward (Section 3.1, Eq. 3) and as the evaluation metric (Section 4.1), and the use of the base algorithm's own topological orders to guide rollouts (Section 3.3). Neither reduces by construction: the paper's claim is that this particular search procedure improves the BDeu score relative to the base algorithms on external bnlearn benchmarks, and the reported gains are empirical outcomes, not identities. The 'gold standard' comparison in Section 4.1 is an experimental baseline, not a derived bound. Self-citations [1] and [7] are implementation and background references, and they are not invoked as load-bearing support for the central claim. The absence of held-out metrics or a random-order control is a benchmarking limitation, not circular reasoning. No circular step can be quoted with an equation-level reduction, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new entities; it builds from standard components. It does introduce several hand-chosen hyperparameters and relies on standard scoring and search assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • Exploration constant C = sqrt(2)/100
    Set by hand in Section 3.2, Eq. 3, described as striking a good balance; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • MCTS iteration budget = 10000
    Chosen in Section 4.1 as the iteration count after the initial expansion; no stopping-criterion analysis is given.
  • Number of seed orders sampled per base algorithm = not specified
    Section 3.3 says 'several topological orders are sampled' but does not state how many, so replicates cannot match this design choice.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math BDeu is a decomposable, locally consistent scoring criterion
    Relied on in Section 3.1 to use BDeu as reward and in Section 4 to compare solutions; standard result from Heckerman et al. and Chickering.
  • domain assumption Order-constrained hill climbing finds a good network for a given topological order
    MCTS-BN uses order-constrained HC from Li and van Beek (2018) once per rollout; if HC often gets stuck far from the order-optimal network, rollout scores mislead the tree search.
  • domain assumption Topological orders sampled from a learned BN are informative guides for rollouts
    The guided-search mechanism in Section 3.3 assumes these seed orders improve exploration; only empirical evidence is provided.
  • domain assumption Datasets of 5000 instances sampled from gold standard BNs are representative structure-learning tasks
    Section 4.1 generates 10 datasets per BN; results may not transfer to other sample sizes or domain characteristics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Bayesian Network Structural Learning with Monte Carlo Tree Search." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D5H7DIBM

@misc{pith2026250201527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Bayesian Network Structural Learning with Monte Carlo Tree Search},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D5H7DIBM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01527}
}
read the original abstract

This article presents MCTS-BN, an adaptation of the Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) algorithm for the structural learning of Bayesian Networks (BNs). Initially designed for game tree exploration, MCTS has been repurposed to address the challenge of learning BN structures by exploring the search space of potential ancestral orders in Bayesian Networks. Then, it employs Hill Climbing (HC) to derive a Bayesian Network structure from each order. In large BNs, where the search space for variable orders becomes vast, using completely random orders during the rollout phase is often unreliable and impractical. We adopt a semi-randomized approach to address this challenge by incorporating variable orders obtained from other heuristic search algorithms such as Greedy Equivalent Search (GES), PC, or HC itself. This hybrid strategy mitigates the computational burden and enhances the reliability of the rollout process. Experimental evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of MCTS-BN in improving BNs generated by traditional structural learning algorithms, exhibiting robust performance even when base algorithm orders are suboptimal and surpassing the gold standard when provided with favorable orders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01527 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of σ + construction from σ and a σGES from a BN. σ · σ ↓X \vars(σ) GES , where · is the concatenation operator and σ ↓A i produces the projection of σi over A, that is, the partial order obtained by re￾moving from σ the variables not in A. Following the example in Figure 1b, if σ = ⟨X5, X1, X2⟩, and σGES = ⟨X1, X4, X7, X2, X5, X3, X6⟩, then σ + = ⟨X5, X1, X2⟩ · ⟨X1, X4, X7, X2, X5, X3, X6⟩ ↓{X3,X4,X6,X7} = ⟨… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. nBDeu score obtained by MCTS-BN over the iterations. 10.84 10.82 10.80 10.78 BDeu score Network = alarm 53.25 53.00 52.75 52.50 52.25 Network = barley 32.99 32.98 32.97 32.96 Network = hepar2 0 25% 50% 75% 1 2500 5000 750010000 Iterations 280 260 240 BDeu score Network = diabetes 0 25% 50% 75% 1 2500 5000 750010000 Iterations 280 260 240 Network = link 0 25% 50% 75% 1 2500 5000 750010000 Iterations 186.5 186.0 185.5… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. nBDeu score obtained by MCTS-BN over the iterations (GES, fGES). Given the considerable variability in the scale of the results for the different algorithms, we present Figures 3 and 4, which depict the same data but exclu￾sively for the GES and fGES algorithms and only for GES, respectively. This presentation can be understood as a kind of zoom and allows for a clearer ap￾preciation of the evolution using these spe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: nBDeu score obtained by MCTS-BN over the iterations (GES). GES fGES HC PC Base Algorithm 0 10 20 30 Time (s) Network = alarm GES fGES HC PC Base Algorithm 0 25 50 75 100 Network = barley GES fGES HC PC Base Algorithm 0 10 20 30 40 Network = hepar2 GES fGES HC PC Base A…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Execution time (seconds) of the base algorithms and the posterior MCTS-BN. Obviously, the goal of this method is not to compare CPU time with greedy algorithms. However, we find it of interest to analyze it [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Applied Soft Com- puting 64, 366–376 (Mar 2018)

    Alonso, J.I., de la Ossa, L., Gámez, J.A., Puerta, J.M.: On the use of local search heuristics to improve GES-based Bayesian network learning. Applied Soft Com- puting 64, 366–376 (Mar 2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Energy Conversion and Management252, 115047 (Jan 2022)

    Bai, F., Ju, X., Wang, S., Zhou, W., Liu, F.: Wind farm layout optimization us- ing adaptive evolutionary algorithm with Monte Carlo Tree Search reinforcement learning. Energy Conversion and Management252, 115047 (Jan 2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Nature Communications13(1) (Oct 2022)

    Bryant, P., Pozzati, G., Zhu, W., Shenoy, A., Kundrotas, P., Elofsson, A.: Predict- ing the structure of large protein complexes using AlphaFold and Monte Carlo tree search. Nature Communications13(1) (Oct 2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Chaslot, G.M.J.B., Winands, M.H.M., van den Herik, H.J.: Parallel Monte-Carlo Tree Search, p. 60–71. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research3(Nov), 507–554 (2002)

    Chickering, D.M.: Optimal Structure Identification With Greedy Search. Journal of Machine Learning Research3(Nov), 507–554 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Chapman and Hall/CRC (Sep 2018)

    Fenton, N., Neil, M.: Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Net- works. Chapman and Hall/CRC (Sep 2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery22(1), 106–148 (Jan 2011)

    Gámez, J.A., Mateo, J.L., Puerta, J.M.: Learning Bayesian networks by hill climb- ing: efficient methods based on progressive restriction of the neighborhood. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery22(1), 106–148 (Jan 2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Machine Learning20(3), 197–243 (Sep 1995)

    Heckerman, D., Geiger, D., Chickering, D.M.: Learning Bayesian Networks: The Combination of Knowledge and Statistical Data. Machine Learning20(3), 197–243 (Sep 1995)

    work page 1995

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA (1960)

    Howard, R.A.: Dynamic Programming and Markov Processes. MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA (1960)

    1960

  2. [10]

    Springer New York, 2nd edn

    Jensen, F.V., Nielsen, T.D.: Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs. Springer New York, 2nd edn. (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Communica- tions Physics 3(1) (May 2020) 12 JD

    Kajita, S., Kinjo, T., Nishi, T.: Autonomous molecular design by Monte-Carlo tree search and rapid evaluations using molecular dynamics simulations. Communica- tions Physics 3(1) (May 2020) 12 JD. Laborda, P. Torrijos, JM. Puerta and JA. Gámez

    2020

  4. [12]

    Springer Publishing Company, 2nd edn

    Kjaerulff, U.B., Madsen, A.L.: Bayesian Networks and Influence Diagrams: A Guide to Construction and Analysis. Springer Publishing Company, 2nd edn. (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Kocsis, L., Szepesvári, C.: Bandit Based Monte-Carlo Planning, p. 282–293. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    The MIT Press (2009)

    Koller, D., Friedman, N.: Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Tech- niques - Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning. The MIT Press (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters5(2), 3715–3722 (Apr 2020)

    Labbe, Y., Zagoruyko, S., Kalevatykh, I., Laptev, I., Carpentier, J., Aubry, M., Sivic, J.: Monte-Carlo Tree Search for Efficient Visually Guided Rearrangement Planning. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters5(2), 3715–3722 (Apr 2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    In: Pan, S.J., Sugiyama, M

    Leurent, E., Maillard, O.A.: Monte-Carlo Graph Search: the Value of Merging Sim- ilar States. In: Pan, S.J., Sugiyama, M. (eds.) Proceedings of The 12th Asian Con- ference on Machine Learning. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 129, pp. 577–592. PMLR (18–20 Nov 2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    In: Kratochvíl, V., Studený, M

    Li, A., van Beek, P.: Bayesian Network Structure Learning with Side Constraints. In: Kratochvíl, V., Studený, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Con- ference on Probabilistic Graphical Models. Proceedings of Machine Learning Re- search, vol. 72, pp. 225–236. PMLR...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 107, 101912 (Jul 2020)

    McLachlan, S., Dube, K., Hitman, G.A., Fenton, N.E., Kyrimi, E.: Bayesian net- works in healthcare: Distribution by medical condition. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 107, 101912 (Jul 2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23(7), 6766–6773 (Jul 2022)

    Mo, S., Pei, X., Wu, C.: Safe Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Vehicle Using Monte Carlo Tree Search. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23(7), 6766–6773 (Jul 2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games7(4), 347–360 (Dec 2015)

    Perez, D., Mostaghim, S., Samothrakis, S., Lucas, S.M.: Multiobjective Monte Carlo Tree Search for Real-Time Games. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games7(4), 347–360 (Dec 2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    International Journal of Data Science and Analytics3, 121 – 129 (2017)

    Ramsey, J., Glymour, M., Sanchez-Romero, R., Glymour, C.: A million vari- ables and more: the Fast Greedy Equivalence Search algorithm for learning high- dimensional graphical causal models, with an application to functional magnetic resonance images. International Journal of ...

    2017

  14. [22]

    Progress in Artificial Intelligence8(4), 425–439 (May 2019)

    Scanagatta, M., Salmerón, A., Stella, F.: A survey on Bayesian network structure learning from data. Progress in Artificial Intelligence8(4), 425–439 (May 2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Journal of Statistical Software 35(3), 1–22 (2010)

    Scutari, M.: Learning Bayesian Networks with the bnlearn R Package. Journal of Statistical Software 35(3), 1–22 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Forest Ecology and Management457, 117723 (Feb 2020)

    Sevinc, V., Kucuk, O., Goltas, M.: A Bayesian network model for prediction and analysis of possible forest fire causes. Forest Ecology and Management457, 117723 (Feb 2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Nature529(7587), 484–489 (Jan 2016)

    Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C.J., et al.: Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature529(7587), 484–489 (Jan 2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Science362(6419), 1140–1144 (Dec 2018)

    Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., et al.: A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. Science362(6419), 1140–1144 (Dec 2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Springer- Verlag, New York, USA (1993)

    Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., Scheimes, R.: Causation, Prediction and Search. Springer- Verlag, New York, USA (1993)

    1993

  20. [28]

    IEEE Transac- tions on Intelligent Transportation Systems22(2), 1185–1195 (Feb 2021) Enhancing BN Structural Learning with MCTS 13

    Weng, D., Chen, R., Zhang, J., Bao, J., Zheng, Y., Wu, Y.: Pareto-Optimal Transit Route Planning With Multi-Objective Monte-Carlo Tree Search. IEEE Transac- tions on Intelligent Transportation Systems22(2), 1185–1195 (Feb 2021) Enhancing BN Structural Learning with MCTS 13

    2021

  21. [29]

    Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing14(9), 12789–12805 (Jul 2022)

    Xie,X.,Xie,B.,Xiong,D.,Hou,M.,Zuo,J.,Wei,G.,Chevallier,J.:Newtheoretical ISM-K2 Bayesian network model for evaluating vaccination effectiveness. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing14(9), 12789–12805 (Jul 2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Artificial Intelligence Review 56(3), 2497–2562 (Jul 2022)

    Świechowski, M., Godlewski, K., Sawicki, B., Mańdziuk, J.: Monte Carlo Tree Search: a review of recent modifications and applications. Artificial Intelligence Review 56(3), 2497–2562 (Jul 2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.