MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2364341470 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11343

Likelihood inflating sampling algorithm

2017· preprint· en· W2364341470 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Reihaneh Entezari, Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloSampling (signal processing)AlgorithmComputer scienceBayesian probabilityPosterior probabilityGibbs samplingLikelihood functionImportance samplingSet (abstract data type)Monte Carlo methodStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEstimation theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling from a posterior distribution corresponding to a massive data set can be computationally prohibitive as producing one sample requires a number of operations that is linear in the data size. In this article we introduce a new communication‐free parallel method, the “Likelihood Inflating Sampling Algorithm (LISA),” that significantly reduces computational costs by randomly splitting the data set into smaller subsets and running MCMC methods “independently” in parallel on each subset using different processors. Each processor will be used to run an MCMC chain that samples sub‐posterior distributions which are defined using an “inflated” likelihood function. We develop a strategy for combining the draws from different sub‐posteriors to study the full posterior of the Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART) model. The performance of the method is tested using simulated data and a large socio‐economic study. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 46: 147–175; 2018 © 2017 Statistical Society of Canada

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.372
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsFrench-language works237,207