Study of incompatibility or near compatibility of bivariate discrete conditional probability distributions through divergence measures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractConsider a two-dimensional discrete random variable (X, Y) with possible values 1, 2, …, I for X and 1, 2, …, J for Y. For specifying the distribution of (X, Y), suppose both conditional distributions, of X given Y and of Y given X, are provided. Under this setting, we present here different ways of measuring discrepancy between incompatible conditional distributions in the finite discrete case. In the process, we also suggest different ways of defining the most nearly compatible distributions in incompatible cases. Many new divergence measures are discussed along with those that are already known for determining the most nearly compatible joint distribution P. Finally, a comparative study is carried out between all these divergence measures as some examples.Keywords: incompatible conditionalsdivergence measuresiterative algorithmconditional specificationnear compatibilitylinear programmingnon-linear programmingϵ-compatibility AcknowledgementsWe express our sincere thanks to the editor and an anonymous reviewer for making several useful suggestion on an earlier version of this manuscript which led to this improved one.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it