Approximating faces of marginal polytopes in discrete hierarchical models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".