Fisher Information Matrix of the Dirichlet-multinomial Distribution
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we derive explicit expressions for the elements of the exact Fisher information matrix of the Dirichlet-multinomial distribution. We show that exact calculation is based on the beta-binomial probability function rather than that of the Dirichlet-multinomial and this makes the exact calculation quite easy. The exact results are expected to be useful for the calculation of standard errors of the maximum likelihood estimates of the beta-binomial parameters and those of the Dirichlet-multinomial parameters for data that arise in practice in toxicology and other similar fields. Standard errors of the maximum likelihood estimates of the beta-binomial parameters and those of the Dirichlet-multinomial parameters, based on the exact and the asymptotic Fisher information matrix based on the Dirichlet distribution, are obtained for a set of data from Haseman and Soares (1976), a dataset from Mosimann (1962) and a more recent dataset from Chen, Kodell, Howe and Gaylor (1991). There is substantial difference between the standard errors of the estimates based on the exact Fisher information matrix and those based on the asymptotic Fisher information matrix.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it