Revising Markov boundary for multiagent probabilistic inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiply sectioned Bayesian networks (MSBNs) extend Bayesian networks (BNs) to graphical models that provide a coherent framework for probabilistic inference in cooperative multiagent distributed interpretation systems. Observation plays an important role in the inference with graphical models. Since observation of each observable variable has a cost, it would be helpful if we can find the most relevant variables to observe. In a probabilistic model, a Markov boundary of a variable provides a minimal set of variables that shields the variable from the influence of all other variables. However, the concept cannot be used directly for observation. First, it is generally intractable to verify conditional independencies in a probabilistic model. Second, the Markov boundary members may not be observable. Third, it is defined only for a single variable. Finally, it is not unique. By revising the concept to address these issues, we introduce the concept of observable Markov boundary of a set of nodes defined on d-separation of graphical models. The observable Markov boundary captures all relevant variables to observe for probabilistic inference with graphical models. In an MSBN, the observable Markov boundary of a set of nodes may span across all Bayesian subnets. We present an algorithm for cooperative computation of the observable Markov boundary of a set of nodes in an MSBN without revealing subnet structures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".