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 OpenAlexafffund
Sonia Jain, Radford M. Neal

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.

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)0.019
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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

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

Citations475
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational and Graphical StatisticsSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207