MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155042384

Optimization with EM and expectation-conjugate-gradient

2003· article· en· W2155042384 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpectation–maximization algorithmConvergence (economics)Conjugate gradient methodLatent variableMathematical optimizationComputer scienceMaximizationMaximum likelihoodNonlinear conjugate gradient methodEstimation theoryConjugate residual methodVariable (mathematics)Applied mathematicsLatent variable modelGradient methodGradient descentMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceStatisticsArtificial neural network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show a close relationship between the Expectation- Maximization (EM) algorithm and direct optimization algorithms such as gradient-based methods for parameter learning. We identify analytic conditions under which EM exhibits Quasi-Newton behavior, and conditions under which it possesses poor, first-order convergence. Based on this analysis, we propose two novel algorithms for maximum likelihood estimation of latent variable models, and report empirical results showing that, as predicted by the theory, the proposed new algorithms can substantially outperform standard EM in terms of speed of convergence in certain cases. 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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Quick stats

Citations122
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207