A comparative review of variable selection techniques for covariate dependent Dirichlet process mixture models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dirichlet Process Mixture (DPM) models have been increasingly employed to specify random partition models that take into account possible patterns within covariates. Furthermore with large numbers of covariates methods for selecting the most important covariates have been proposed. Commonly the covariates are chosen either for their importance in determining the clustering of the observations or for their effect on the level of a response variable (when a regression model is specified). Typically both strategies involve the specification of latent indicators that regulate the inclusion of the covariates in the model. Common examples involve the use of spike and slab prior distributions. In this work we review the most relevant DPM models that include covariate information in the induced partition of the observations and we focus on available variable selection techniques for these models. We highlight the main features of each model and demonstrate them using simulations and a real data application. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 45: 254–273; 2017 © 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it