Bibliographic record
Abstract
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), the most widely used algorithm in Bayesian statistics, can fail to converge. Although convergence is tested by various diagnostics, these can only reveal failure, never success. To avoid these difficulties, this paper suggests a recipe for using Bayesian network propagation (BNP) to compute posterior results for fish stock assessment. Bayesian networks employ discrete random variables and specify relationships between them with conditional probability tables. Therefore, the recipe uses a new technique called "fuzzy discretization" to convert a continuous Bayesian model into a discrete Bayesian network. The technique is illustrated on a Schaefer assessment model by showing how model equations can be converted to probability tables. Posterior density estimates for carrying capacity (K) from both MCMC and BNP were compared with exact results (obtained by analytic integration and grid search) under three scenarios. BNP outperformed MCMC (as implemented in WinBUGS) in all scenarios, though MCMC diagnostics previously deemed sufficient reported no problems. Tightening the grid resolution of discrete numeric variables over regions of high posterior probability greatly improved BNP performance, so a grid selection heuristic is included in the recipe. In summary, this recipe may provide an effective alternative to MCMC for similar Bayesian problems.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".