Structural extension to logistic regression: discriminative parameter learning of belief net classifiers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Bayesian belief nets (BNs) are often used for classification tasks — typically to return the most likely class label for each specified instance. Many BN-learners, however, attempt to find the BN that maximizes a different objective function — viz., likelihood, rather than classification accuracy — typically by first learning an appropriate graphical structure, then finding the parameters for that structure that maximize the likelihood of the data. As these parameters may not maximize the classification accuracy, “discriminative parameter learners ” follow the alternative approach of seeking the parameters that maximize conditional likelihood (CL), over the distribution of instances the BN will have to classify. This paper first formally specifies this task, shows how it extends standard logistic regression, and analyzes its inherent sample and computational complexity. We then present a general algorithm for this task, ELR, that applies to arbitrary BN structures and that works effectively even when given incomplete training data. Unfortunately, ELR is not guaranteed to find the parameters that optimize conditional likelihood; moreover, even the optimal-CL parameters need not have minimal classification error. This paper therefore presents empirical evidence that ELR produces effective classifiers, often superior to the ones produced by the standard “generative” algorithms, especially in common situations where the given BN-structure is incorrect. Keywords: (Bayesian) belief nets, Logistic regression, Classification, PAC-learning, Computational/sample complexity
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".