Bayesian 'hyper-parameters' approach to joint estimation: the Hubble constant from CMB measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently several studies have jointly analysed data from different cosmological probes with the motivation of estimating cosmological parameters. Here we generalize this procedure to allow freedom in the relative weights of various probes. This is done by including in the joint χ2 function a set of 'hyper-parameters', which are dealt with using Bayesian considerations. The resulting algorithm, which assumes uniform priors on the log of the hyper-parameters, is very simple: instead of minimizing Σχ2j (where χ2j is per data set j) we propose to minimize ΣNj1n(χ2j) (where Nj is the number of data points per data set j). We illustrate the method by estimating the Hubble constant H0 from different sets of recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) experiments (including Saskatoon Phyton V, MSAM1, TOCO and Boomerang). The approach can be generalized for combinations of cosmic probes, and for other priors on the hyper-parameters.
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 | 0.016 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".