MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302323532 · doi:10.1214/18-aos1710

Approximating faces of marginal polytopes in discrete hierarchical models

2019· article· en· W2302323532 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Statistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolytopeDimension (graph theory)InferenceBoundary (topology)Face (sociological concept)Marginal likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence of the maximum likelihood estimate in a hierarchical log-linear model is crucial to the reliability of inference for this model. Determining whether the estimate exists is equivalent to finding whether the sufficient statistics vector $t$ belongs to the boundary of the marginal polytope of the model. The dimension of the smallest face $\mathbf{F}_{t}$ containing $t$ determines the dimension of the reduced model which should be considered for correct inference. For higher-dimensional problems, it is not possible to compute $\mathbf{F}_{t}$ exactly. Massam and Wang (2015) found an outer approximation to $\mathbf{F}_{t}$ using a collection of submodels of the original model. This paper refines the methodology to find an outer approximation and devises a new methodology to find an inner approximation. The inner approximation is given not in terms of a face of the marginal polytope, but in terms of a subset of the vertices of $\mathbf{F}_{t}$. Knowing $\mathbf{F}_{t}$ exactly indicates which cell probabilities have maximum likelihood estimates equal to $0$. When $\mathbf{F}_{t}$ cannot be obtained exactly, we can use, first, the outer approximation $\mathbf{F}_{2}$ to reduce the dimension of the problem and then the inner approximation $\mathbf{F}_{1}$ to obtain correct estimates of cell probabilities corresponding to elements of $\mathbf{F}_{1}$ and improve the estimates of the remaining probabilities corresponding to elements in $\mathbf{F}_{2}\setminus\mathbf{F}_{1}$. Using both real-world and simulated data, we illustrate our results, and show that our methodology scales to high dimensions.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.322
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