MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976872807 · doi:10.1109/isit.2012.6283652

Relaxed Gaussian Belief Propagation

2012· article· en· W1976872807 on OpenAlexaff
Yousef El-Kurdi, Dennis D. Giannacopoulos, Warren J. Gross

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBelief propagationGaussianAlgorithmRelaxation (psychology)HeuristicComputer scienceComputational complexity theoryMarkov chainReduction (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationCovarianceGaussian processA priori and a posterioriCovariance matrixMathematicsDecoding methodsMachine learningStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Gaussian Belief Propagation (GaBP) algorithm executed on Gaussian Markov Random Fields can take a large number of iterations to converge if the inverse covariance matrix of the underlying Gaussian distribution is ill-conditioned and weakly diagonally dominant. Such matrices can arise from many practical problem domains. In this study, we propose a relaxed GaBP algorithm that results in a significant reduction in the number of GaBP iterations (of up to 12.7 times). We also propose a second relaxed GaBP algorithm that avoids the need of determining the relaxation factor a priori which can also achieve comparable reductions in iterations by only setting two basic heuristic measures. We show that the new algorithms can be implemented without any significant increase, over the original GaBP, in both the computational complexity and the memory requirements. We also present detailed experimental results of the new algorithms and demonstrate their effectiveness in achieving significant reductions in the iteration count.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207