MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297082043 · doi:10.1080/10618600.2018.1513365

Adaptive Component-Wise Multiple-Try Metropolis Sampling

2018· article· en· W2297082043 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolis–Hastings algorithmMarkov chainErgodicityMarkov chain Monte CarloComponent (thermodynamics)AlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsSet (abstract data type)Additive Markov chainMathematical optimizationDistribution (mathematics)Variable-order Markov modelMarkov modelArtificial intelligenceMachine learningStatisticsBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most widely used samplers in practice is the component-wise Metropolis–Hastings (CMH) sampler that updates in turn the components of a vector-valued Markov chain using accept–reject moves generated from a proposal distribution. When the target distribution of a Markov chain is irregularly shaped, a “good” proposal distribution for one region of the state–space might be a “poor” one for another region. We consider a component-wise multiple-try Metropolis (CMTM) algorithm that chooses from a set of candidate moves sampled from different distributions. The computational efficiency is increased using an adaptation rule for the CMTM algorithm that dynamically builds a better set of proposal distributions as the Markov chain runs. The ergodicity of the adaptive chain is demonstrated theoretically. The performance is studied via simulations and real data examples. Supplementary material for this article is available online.

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)0.001
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 score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.287 · 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