New estimation and feature selection methods in mixture‐of‐experts models
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
Abstract We study estimation and feature selection problems in mixture‐of‐experts models. An $l_2$ ‐penalized maximum likelihood estimator is proposed as an alternative to the ordinary maximum likelihood estimator. The estimator is particularly advantageous when fitting a mixture‐of‐experts model to data with many correlated features. It is shown that the proposed estimator is root‐ $n$ consistent, and simulations show its superior finite sample behaviour compared to that of the maximum likelihood estimator. For feature selection, two extra penalty functions are applied to the $l_2$ ‐penalized log‐likelihood function. The proposed feature selection method is computationally much more efficient than the popular all‐subset selection methods. Theoretically it is shown that the method is consistent in feature selection, and simulations support our theoretical results. A real‐data example is presented to demonstrate the method. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 38: 519–539; 2010 © 2010 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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