Implementation issues for Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods in random regression test‐day models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods made possible estimation of parameters for complex random regression test‐day models. Models evolved from single‐trait with one set of random regressions to multiple‐trait applications with several random effects described by regressions. Gibbs sampling has been used for models with linear (with respect to coefficients) regressions and normality assumptions for random effects. Difficulties associated with implementations of Markov Chain Monte Carlo schemes include lack of good practical methods to assess convergence, slow mixing caused by high posterior correlations of parameters and long running time to generate enough posterior samples. Those problems are illustrated through comparison of Gibbs sampling schemes for single‐trait random regression test‐day models with different model parameterizations, different functions used for regressions and posterior chains of different sizes. Orthogonal polynomials showed better convergence and mixing properties in comparison with ‘lactation curve’ functions of the same number of parameters. Increasing the order of polynomials resulted in smaller number of independent samples for covariance components. Gibbs sampling under hierarchical model parameterization had a lower level of autocorrelation and required less time for computation. Posterior means and standard deviations of genetic parameters were very similar for chains of different size (from 20 000 to 1 000 000) after convergence. Single‐trait random regression models with large data sets can be analysed by Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods in relatively short time. Multiple‐trait (lactation) models are computationally more demanding and better algorithms are required.
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 | 0.019 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".