MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164907674 · doi:10.1145/1899396.1899398

The double CFTP method

2011· article· en· W2164907674 on OpenAlexafffund
Luc Devroye, Lancelot F. James

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHungkuang UniversityHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyResearch Grants Council, University Grants Committee
KeywordsMathematicsDirichlet distributionMarkov chainPoisson distributionCoalescence (physics)CombinatoricsLimit (mathematics)Poisson point processApplied mathematicsDistribution (mathematics)Identity (music)Bessel functionDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysisBoundary value problemStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of the exact simulation of random variablesZthat satisfy the distributional identityZ=LVY+ (1-V)Z, whereV∈ [0,1] andYare independent, and =Ldenotes equality in distribution. Equivalently,Zis the limit of a Markov chain driven by that map. We give an algorithm that can be automated under the condition that we have a source capable of generating independent copies ofY, and thatVhas a density that can be evaluated in a black-box format. The method uses a doubling trick for inducing coalescence in coupling from the past. Applications include exact samplers for many Dirichlet means, some two-parameter Poisson--Dirichlet means, and a host of other distributions related to occupation times of Bessel bridges that can be described by stochastic fixed point equations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer SimulationSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207