MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127639212 · doi:10.1109/ictai.2009.114

Heuristic Assignment of CPDs for Probabilistic Inference in Junction Trees

2009· article· en· W2127639212 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Wu, Nasreen Mirza Tania, Karen H. Jin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitializationComputer scienceHeuristicInferenceProbabilistic logicBayesian networkMessage passingTree (set theory)Cluster (spacecraft)Artificial intelligenceDynamic Bayesian networkArchitectureComputationTheoretical computer scienceBelief propagationMachine learningDistributed computingAlgorithmMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive research has been done for efficient computation of probabilistic queries posed to Bayesian networks (BNs). One popular architecture for exact inference on BNs is the Junction Tree (JT) based architecture. Among all variations developed, HUGIN is the most efficient JT-based architecture. The Global Propagation (GP) method used in the HUGIN architecture is arguably one of the best methods for probabilistic inference in BNs. Before the propagation, initialization is done to obtain the potential for each cluster in the JT. Then with the GP method, each cluster potential is transformed into cluster marginal through passing messages with its neighboring clusters. Improvements have been proposed to make the message propagation more efficient. Still, the GP method can be very slow for dense networks. As BNs are applied to larger, more complex and realistic applications, the design of more efficient inference algorithm has become increasingly important. Towards this goal, in this paper, we present a heuristic for initialization that avoids unnecessary message passing among clusters of a JT, therefore improving the performance of the architecture by passing fewer messages.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207