MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1882220678 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.7408

Context-Specific Approximation in Probabilistic Inference

2013· article· en· W1882220678 on OpenAlexaff
David Poole

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicInferenceExploitComputer scienceBayesian networkContext (archaeology)Probabilistic relevance modelTheoretical computer scienceDivergence-from-randomness modelProbabilistic argumentationDecompositionBayesian inferenceApproximate inferenceProbabilistic analysis of algorithmsBayesian probabilityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is evidence that the numbers in probabilistic inference don't really matter. This paper considers the idea that we can make a probabilistic model simpler by making fewer distinctions. Unfortunately, the level of a Bayesian network seems too coarse; it is unlikely that a parent will make little difference for all values of the other parents. In this paper we consider an approximation scheme where distinctions can be ignored in some contexts, but not in other contexts. We elaborate on a notion of a parent context that allows a structured context-specific decomposition of a probability distribution and the associated probabilistic inference scheme called probabilistic partial evaluation (Poole 1997). This paper shows a way to simplify a probabilistic model by ignoring distinctions which have similar probabilities, a method to exploit the simpler model, a bound on the resulting errors, and some preliminary empirical results on simple networks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.020
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.101 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207