MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047509458 · doi:10.1121/1.3385012

Computation of normalizing constants in geoacoustic Bayesian inference.

2010· article· en· W2047509458 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Dettmer, Stan E. Dosso

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoment (physics)Posterior probabilityBayesian inferenceLikelihood functionBayes factorMathematicsComputationApproximate Bayesian computationBayes' theoremParametrization (atmospheric modeling)InferenceAlgorithmSampling (signal processing)Importance samplingBayesian probabilityComputer scienceApplied mathematicsStatisticsEstimation theoryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers approaches to computing normalizing constants (Z) in Bayesian inference problems. Bayes’ theorem combines the likelihood function, model prior, and Z to form the posterior probability density (PPD). Z (also known as evidence) is difficult to compute for general problems and a common approach is to avoid its computation entirely by calculating an unnormalized estimate of the PPD which is sufficient for moment estimates. However, estimating the normalized PPD, including Z, allows for moment estimates as well as quantifying the likelihood of the model parametrization. This is commonly referred to as model selection and poses a natural way to quantifying the most appropriate model parametrization for a given data set (Bayesian razor). Several approaches for computing Z have been developed in the statistics community, some of which are applied here to the geoacoustic inference problem. Annealed importance sampling follows an annealing approach and computes weighted averages along cooling trajectories. Nested sampling uses a likelihood constraint to move from the prior mass to the posterior. Both methods also give parameter estimates which are compared to Metropolis–Hastings results. [Work supported by the Office of Naval Research.]

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207