MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100065940 · doi:10.5121/csit.2016.60606

Testing and Improving Local Adaptive Importance Sampling in LFJ Local-JT in Multiply Sectioned Bayesian Networks

2016· article· en· W2100065940 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Wu, Sonia Bhatti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathfinderComputer scienceScalabilityConvergence (economics)Bayesian networkInferenceContext (archaeology)Probabilistic logicReliability (semiconductor)Domain (mathematical analysis)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiply Sectioned Bayesian Network (MSBN) provides a model for probabilistic reasoning in multi-agent systems. The exact inference is costly and difficult to be applied in the context of MSBNs as the size of problem domain becomes larger and complex. So the approximate techniques are used as an alternative in such cases. Recently, for reasoning in MSBNs, LJFbased Local Adaptive Importance Sampler (LLAIS) has been developed for approximate reasoning in MSBNs. However, the prototype of LLAIS is tested only on Alarm Network (37 nodes). But further testing on larger networks has not been reported yet, so the scalability and reliability of algorithm remains questionable. Hence, we tested LLAIS on three large networks (treated as local JTs) namely Hailfinder (56 nodes), Win95pts (76 nodes) and PathFinder(109 nodes). From the experiments done, it is seen that LLAIS without parameters tuned shows good convergence for Hailfinder and Win95pts but not for Pathfinder network. Further when these parameters are tuned the algorithm shows considerable improvement in its accuracy and convergence for all the three networks tested.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207