Parallel Bayesian Additive Regression Trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) is a Bayesian approach to flexible nonlinear regression which has been shown to be competitive with the best modern predictive methods such as those based on bagging and boosting. BART offers some advantages. For example, the stochastic search Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm can provide a more complete search of the model space and variation across MCMC draws can capture the level of uncertainty in the usual Bayesian way. The BART prior is robust in that reasonable results are typically obtained with a default prior specification. However, the publicly available implementation of the BART algorithm in the R package BayesTree is not fast enough to be considered interactive with over a thousand observations, and is unlikely to even run with 50,000 to 100,000 observations. In this article we show how the BART algorithm may be modified and then computed using single program, multiple data (SPMD) parallel computation implemented using the Message Passing Interface (MPI) library. The approach scales nearly linearly in the number of processor cores, enabling the practitioner to perform statistical inference on massive datasets. Our approach can also handle datasets too massive to fit on any single data repository.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".