Methods of Moments for Learning Stochastic Languages: Unified Presentation and Empirical Comparison
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
Probabilistic latent-variable models are a power-ful tool for modelling structured data. However, traditional expectation-maximization methods of learning such models are both computationally expensive and prone to local-minima. In contrast to these traditional methods, recently developed learning algorithms based upon the method of moments are both computationally efficient and provide strong statistical guarantees. In this work we provide a unified presentation and empiri-cal comparison of three general moment-based methods in the context of modelling stochastic languages. By rephrasing these methods upon a common theoretical ground, introducing novel theoretical results where necessary, we provide a clear comparison, making explicit the statisti-cal assumptions upon which each method relies. With this theoretical grounding, we then provide an in-depth empirical analysis of the methods on both real and synthetic data with the goal of elu-cidating performance trends and highlighting im-portant implementation details. 1.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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