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
Given samples from an unknown multivariate distribution p, is it possible to distinguish whether p is the product of its marginals versus p being far from every product distribution? Similarly, is it possible to distinguish whether p equals a given distribution q versus p and q being far from each other? These problems of testing independence and goodnessof-fit have received enormous attention in statistics, information theory, and theoretical computer science, with sample-optimal algorithms known in several interesting regimes of parameters. Unfortunately, it has also been understood that these problems become intractable in large dimensions, necessitating exponential sample complexity. Motivated by the exponential lower bounds for general distributions as well as the ubiquity of Markov random fields (MRFs) in the modeling of high-dimensional distributions, we initiate the study of distribution testing on structured multivariate distributions, and in particular, the prototypical example of MRFs: the Ising Model. We demonstrate that, in this structured setting, we can avoid the curse of dimensionality, obtaining sample, and time efficient testers for independence and goodness-of-fit. One of the key technical challenges we face along the way is bounding the variance of functions of the Ising model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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