Blending learning and inference in conditional random fields
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
Conditional random fields maximize the log-likelihood of training labels given the training data, e.g., objects given images. In many cases the training labels are structures that consist of a set of variables and the computational complexity for estimating their likelihood is exponential in the number of the variables. Learning algorithms relax this computational burden using approximate inference that is nested as a sub-procedure. In this paper we describe the objective function for nested learning and inference in conditional random fields. The devised objective maximizes the log-beliefs -- probability distributions over subsets of training variables that agree on their marginal probabilities. This objective is concave and consists of two types of variables that are related to the learning and inference tasks respectively. Importantly, we afterwards show how to blend the learning and inference procedure and effectively get to the identical optimum much faster. The proposed algorithm currently achieves the state-of-the-art in various computer vision applications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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