MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995451610 · doi:10.1214/105051605000000539

Rates for branching particle approximations of continuous-discrete filters

2005· article· en· W1995451610 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael A. Kouritzin, Wei Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Applied Probability · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityLockheed Martin (Canada)University of Alberta
FundersMitacs
KeywordsParticle systemMathematicsParticle filterBranching processDiscrete time and continuous timeBranching (polymer chemistry)ComputationMarkov chainSobolev spaceNorm (philosophy)Discrete mathematicsAlgorithmCombinatoricsApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisComputer scienceKalman filterStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Herein, we analyze an efficient branching particle method for asymptotic solutions to a class of continuous-discrete filtering problems. Suppose that t→Xt is a Markov process and we wish to calculate the measure-valued process t→μt(⋅)≐P{Xt∈⋅|σ{Ytk, tk≤t}}, where tk=kɛ and Ytk is a distorted, corrupted, partial observation of Xtk. Then, one constructs a particle system with observation-dependent branching and n initial particles whose empirical measure at time t, μtn, closely approximates μt. Each particle evolves independently of the other particles according to the law of the signal between observation times tk, and branches with small probability at an observation time. For filtering problems where ɛ is very small, using the algorithm considered in this paper requires far fewer computations than other algorithms that branch or interact all particles regardless of the value of ɛ. We analyze the algorithm on Lévy-stable signals and give rates of convergence for E1/2{‖μnt−μt‖γ2}, where ‖⋅‖γ is a Sobolev norm, as well as related convergence results.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Applied ProbabilitySame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207