MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137218177 · doi:10.1109/cdc.2014.7040041

Poisson's Equation in Nonlinear Filtering

2014· preprint· en· W2137218177 on OpenAlexaff
Richard S. Laugesen, Prashant G. Mehta, Sean Meyn, Maxim Raginsky

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivergence (linguistics)Gradient descentNonlinear systemMathematicsFilter (signal processing)Nonlinear filterApplied mathematicsBalanced flowKullback–Leibler divergenceParticle filterSpace (punctuation)MinificationMathematical optimizationMathematical analysisFilter designComputer scienceKalman filterArtificial neural networkPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this paper is to gain insight into the equations arising in nonlinear filtering, as well as into the feedback particle filter introduced in recent research. The analysis is inspired by the optimal transportation literature and by prior work on variational formulation of nonlinear filtering. The construction involves a discrete-time recursion based on the successive solution of minimization problems involving the so-called forward variational representation of the elementary Bayes' formula. The construction shows that the dynamics of the nonlinear filter may be regarded as a gradient flow, or a steepest descent, for a certain energy functional with respect to the Kullback-Leibler divergence pseudo-metric. The feedback particle filter algorithm is obtained using similar analysis. This filter is a controlled system, where the control is obtained via consideration of the first order optimality conditions for the variational problem. The filter is shown to be exact, i.e., the posterior distribution of the particle matches exactly the true posterior, provided the filter is initialized with the true prior.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsFrench-language works237,207