On Markov chain Monte Carlo Algorithms for Computing Conditional Expectations Based on Sufficient Statistics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much work has focused on developing exact tests for the analysis of discrete data using log linear or logistic regression models. A parametric model is tested for a dataset by conditioning on the value of a sufficient statistic and determining the probability of obtaining another dataset as extreme or more extreme relative to the general model, where extremeness is determined by the value of a test statistic such as the chi-square or the log-likelihood ratio. Exact determination of these probabilities can be infeasible for high dimensional problems, and asymptotic approximations to them are often inaccurate when there are small data entries and/or there are many nuisance parameters. In these cases Monte Carlo methods can be used to estimate exact probabilities by randomly generating datasets (tables) that match the sufficient statistic of the original table. However, naive Monte Carlo methods produce tables that are usually far from matching the sufficient statistic. The Markov chain Monte Carlo method used in this work (the regression/attraction approach) uses attraction to concentrate the distribution around the set of tables that match the sufficient statistic, and uses regression to take advantage of information in tables that “almost” match. It is also more general than others in that it does not require the sufficient statistic to be linear, and it can be adapted to problems involving continuous variables. The method is applied to several high dimensional settings including four-way tables with a model of no four-way interaction, and a table of continuous data based on beta distributions. It is powerful enough to deal with the difficult problem of four-way tables and flexible enough to handle continuous data with a nonlinear sufficient statistic.
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 | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".