Bayesian structure learning using dynamic programming and MCMC
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MCMC methods for sampling from the space of DAGs can mix poorly due to the local nature of the proposals that are commonly used. It has been shown that sampling from the space of node orders yields better results [FK03, EW06]. Recently, Koivisto and Sood showed how one can analytically marginalize over orders using dynamic programming (DP) [KS04, Koi06]. Their method computes the exact marginal posterior edge probabilities, thus avoiding the need for MCMC. Unfortunately, there are four drawbacks to the DP technique: it can only use modular priors, it can only compute posteriors over modular features, it is difficult to compute a predictive density, and it takes exponential time and space. We show how to overcome the first three of these problems by using the DP algorithm as a proposal distribution for MCMC in DAG space. We show that this hybrid technique converges to the posterior faster than other methods, resulting in more accurate structure learning and higher predictive likelihoods on test data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it