Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spectral learning recently generated lots of excitement in machine learning, largely because it is the first known method to produce consistent estimates (under suitable conditions) for several latent variable models. In contrast, maximum likelihood estimates may get trapped in local optima due to the non-convex nature of the likelihood function of latent variable models. In this paper, we do an empirical evaluation of spectral learning (SL) and expectation maximization (EM), which reveals an important gap between the theory and the practice. First, SL often leads to negative probabilities. Second, EM often yields better estimates than spectral learning and it does not seem to get stuck in local optima. We discuss how the rank of the model parameters and the amount of training data can yield negative probabilities. We also question the common belief that maximum likelihood estimators are necessarily inconsistent.
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 | 0.013 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".