MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134480729 · doi:10.1109/ictai.2008.70

Marginal Calibration in Multi-agent Probabilistic Systems

2008· article· en· W2134480729 on OpenAlexaff
Karen H. Jin, Dan Wu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInitializationSubnetProbabilistic logicBayesian networkInferenceCalibrationMarginal distributionProcess (computing)Message passingMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmData miningDistributed computingMathematicsComputer networkStatisticsRandom variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The multiply sectioned Bayesian network (MSBN) model successfully extends the traditional Bayesian network (BN) model for the support of probabilistic inference in distributed multi-agent systems. However, existing MSBN inference methods do not allow agents to reason about their own problem sub-domains right after the initialization process. Extensive amount of inter-agent message passings are needed to calibrate each agent's local subnet into a correct prior marginal distribution. In this paper, we introduce the concept of prior marginal factors to facilitate this process. Based on the analysis of the prior marginal factors, minimum message passing is required during calibration. Furthermore, we have removed the requirement of maintaining a consistent junction tree (JT) during message calculation. Therefore, our marginal calibration algorithm guarantees that a prior marginal in each MSBN subnet is formed with greatly reduced communication and computational cost. Our preliminary experiments have confirmed the improved time efficiency of the proposed algorithm.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207