MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162021827 · doi:10.1198/1061860043001

A Split-Merge Markov chain Monte Carlo Procedure for the Dirichlet Process Mixture Model

2004· article· en· W2162021827 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGibbs samplingMarkov chain Monte CarloMetropolis–Hastings algorithmHierarchical Dirichlet processDirichlet distributionRejection samplingDirichlet processMarkov chainSlice samplingComputer scienceAlgorithmMonte Carlo methodMerge (version control)Hybrid Monte CarloMathematicsBayesian probabilityArtificial intelligenceLatent Dirichlet allocationMachine learningStatisticsTopic model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes a split-merge Markov chain algorithm to address the problem of inefficient sampling for conjugate Dirichlet process mixture models. Traditional Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for Bayesian mixture models, such as Gibbs sampling, can become trapped in isolated modes corresponding to an inappropriate clustering of data points. This article describes a Metropolis-Hastings procedure that can escape such local modes by splitting or merging mixture components. Our algorithm employs a new technique in which an appropriate proposal for splitting or merging components is obtained by using a restricted Gibbs sampling scan. We demonstrate empirically that our method outperforms the Gibbs sampler in situations where two or more components are similar in structure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.267 · 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