Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an extension to Jaynes’ maximum entropy principle that incorporates latent variables. The principle of latent maximum entropy we propose is different from both Jaynes’ maximum entropy principle and maximum likelihood estimation, but can yield better estimates in the presence of hidden variables and limited training data. We first show that solving for a latent maximum entropy model poses a hard nonlinear constrained optimization problem in general. However, we then show that feasible solutions to this problem can be obtained efficiently for the special case of log-linear models---which forms the basis for an efficient approximation to the latent maximum entropy principle. We derive an algorithm that combines expectation-maximization with iterative scaling to produce feasible log-linear solutions. This algorithm can be interpreted as an alternating minimization algorithm in the information divergence, and reveals an intimate connection between the latent maximum entropy and maximum likelihood principles. To select a final model, we generate a series of feasible candidates, calculate the entropy of each, and choose the model that attains the highest entropy. Our experimental results show that estimation based on the latent maximum entropy principle generally gives better results than maximum likelihood when estimating latent variable models on small observed data samples.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".