MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bayesian exoplanet tests of a new method for MCMC sampling in highly correlated model parameter spaces

2010· article· en· W2107142216 on OpenAlexaff
P. C. Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloParallel temperingSimulated annealingAlgorithmSampling (signal processing)Bayesian probabilityParameter spaceExoplanetPhysicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHybrid Monte CarloStatisticsStarsMathematicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method is a powerful technique for facilitating Bayesian non-linear model fitting. In many cases, the MCMC exploration of the parameter space is very inefficient, because the model parameters are highly correlated. Differential evolution MCMC is one technique that addresses this problem by employing multiple parallel chains. We present a new method that automatically achieves efficient MCMC sampling in highly correlated parameter spaces, which does not require additional chains to accomplish this. It was designed to work with an existing hybrid MCMC (HMCMC) algorithm, which incorporates parallel tempering, simulated annealing and genetic cross-over operations. These features, together with the new correlated parameter sampler, greatly facilitate the detection of a global minimum in χ2. The new HMCMC algorithm is very general in scope. Two tests of the algorithm are described employing (a) exoplanet precision radial velocity (RV) data and (b) simulated space astrometry data. The latter test explores the accuracy of parameter estimates obtained with the Bayesian HMCMC algorithm on the assumed astrometric noise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations75
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207