MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145677862 · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00289

Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Spatial Models by Markov Chain Monte Carlo Stochastic Approximation

2001· article· en· W2145677862 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Gu, Hong-Tu Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersDivision of Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloMetropolis–Hastings algorithmMonte Carlo methodGibbs samplingAlgorithmMarkov chainComputer scienceStochastic approximationForward algorithmHybrid Monte CarloMonte Carlo algorithmMathematical optimizationMarkov modelMathematicsVariable-order Markov modelStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary We propose a two-stage algorithm for computing maximum likelihood estimates for a class of spatial models. The algorithm combines Markov chain Monte Carlo methods such as the Metropolis–Hastings–Green algorithm and the Gibbs sampler, and stochastic approximation methods such as the off-line average and adaptive search direction. A new criterion is built into the algorithm so stopping is automatic once the desired precision has been set. Simulation studies and applications to some real data sets have been conducted with three spatial models. We compared the algorithm proposed with a direct application of the classical Robbins–Monro algorithm using Wiebe's wheat data and found that our procedure is at least 15 times faster.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
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

Citations103
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology)Same topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207