Recursive Deviance Information Criterion for the Hidden Markov Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Bayesian model selection, the deviance information criterion (DIC) has become a widely used criterion. It is however not defined for the hidden Markov models (HMMs). In particular, the main challenge of applying the DIC for HMMs is that the observed likelihood function of such models is not available in closed form. A closed form for the observed likelihood function can be obtained either by summing all possible hidden states of the complete likelihood using the so-called the forward recursion, or via integrating out the hidden states in the conditional likelihood. Hence, we propose two versions of the DIC to the model choice problem in HMMs context, namely, the recursive deviance-based DIC and the conditional likelihood-based DIC. In this paper, we compare several normal HMMs after they are estimated by Bayesian MCMC method. We conduct a simulation study based on synthetic data generated under two assumptions, namely diversity in the heterogeneity level and also the number of states. We show that the recursive deviance-based DIC performs well in selecting the correct model compared with the conditional likelihood-based DIC that prefers the more complicated models. A real application involving the waiting time of Old Faithful Geyser data was also used to check those criteria. All the simulations were conducted in Python v.2.7.10, available from first author on request.
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 | 0.022 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".