MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527038466

Relevant Path Separation: A Faster Method for Testing Independencies in Bayesian Networks

2016· article· en· W2527038466 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProbabilistic Graphical Models · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeparation (statistics)Bayesian networkIndependence (probability theory)Computer sciencePath (computing)Intersection (aeronautics)Range (aeronautics)Bayesian probabilitySeparation of concernsSource separationArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsEngineeringComputer network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Directed separation (d-separation) played a fundamental role in the founding of Bayesian networks (BNs) and continues to be useful today in a wide range of applications. Given an independence to be tested, current implementations of d-separation explore the active part of a BN. On the other hand, an overlooked property of d-separation implies that d-separation need only consider the relevant part of a BN. We propose a new method for testing independencies in BNs, called relevant path separation (rp-separation), which explores the intersection between the active and relevant parts of a BN. Favourable experimental results are reported.

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)0.001
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 score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.247 · 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