The Orthogonally Partitioned EM Algorithm: Extending the EM Algorithm for Algorithmic Stability and Bias Correction Due to Imperfect Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose an extension of the EM algorithm that exploits the common assumption of unique parameterization, corrects for biases due to missing data and measurement error, converges for the specified model when standard implementation of the EM algorithm has a low probability of convergence, and reduces a potentially complex algorithm into a sequence of smaller, simpler, self-contained EM algorithms. We use the theory surrounding the EM algorithm to derive the theoretical results of our proposal, showing that an optimal solution over the parameter space is obtained. A simulation study is used to explore the finite sample properties of the proposed extension when there is missing data and measurement error. We observe that partitioning the EM algorithm into simpler steps may provide better bias reduction in the estimation of model parameters. The ability to breakdown a complicated problem in to a series of simpler, more accessible problems will permit a broader implementation of the EM algorithm, permit the use of software packages that now implement and/or automate the EM algorithm, and make the EM algorithm more accessible to a wider and more general audience.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".