Talk:Latent variable model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think that Latent variable model and Latent variable should be merged - they're different concepts, and neither is obviously a subcategory of the other. The articles currently contain quite different information, so this isn't a case where there is duplication of effort happening. I believe (thought it is not my field of mathematics) that the use of the term latent variable is much wider than its article implies, and includes situations quite unrelated to latent variable models. Chrisjohnson 01:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the articles should not be merged. The definition of Latent variables is commpletly unrelated to how you chose to use them. Therefore it may be misleading to link the definition to a particular class of models.74.60.48.250 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)graciata

I just don't agree. These are 2 different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.147.246 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

While they are two different things they are so closely linked that they should be one article, as is the case in the Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. All the description needed of a latent variable is that it is unobserved, everything else relates to the models, as without a model there can't be any manifest variables. Kjbeath (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)