MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Aspect Oriented Framework to Applying Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods with Dynamic Models

2016· article· en· W2574023156 on OpenAlexaff
Priyasree Bhowmik, Christopher Dutchyn, Nathaniel Osgood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloComputer scienceProbabilistic logicGraphical modelMonte Carlo methodBayesian probabilityData miningCalibrationMachine learningMathematical optimizationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both dynamic modeling and Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods are established as increasingly popular approaches in their own domains. Dynamic modeling, although widely used to address complex situations, often suffers shortage of empirical data for model parameterization. Dynamic modelers thus use calibration to estimate parameters for which direct evidence is lacking. Unfortunately calibration suffers limitations in capturing the global (for multi-modal distribution) structure of parameter distributions, and a lack of a means of translating uncertainty in parameter estimates directly into uncertainty with respect to model outcomes. We present here a generic user-friendly aspect-based implementation of a theoretically grounded approach to address these limitations by combining Bayesian MCMC methods with dynamic models to estimate model parameters by sampling from joint posterior parameter distributions. The framework is enriched by a user interface to enable the parameter selection at run-time and an interactive run-time graphical visualization of parameter traceplots is generated during MCMC operation. To enable this, a probabilistic model -- including a prior distribution and a likelihood function -- needs to be specified within the dynamic model. The framework, when enabled, performs MCMC experiments using the dynamic and probabilistic models. We describe here the framework, experiments conducted, and the results obtained.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207