MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618421303 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.09279

Filtering Variational Objectives

2017· preprint· en· W2618421303 on OpenAlexaff
Chris J. Maddison, Dieterich Lawson, George Tucker, Nicolas Heess, Mohammad Norouzi, Andriy Mnih, Arnaud Doucet, Yee Whye Teh

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilEuropean Commission
KeywordsEstimatorVariance (accounting)Upper and lower boundsComputer scienceParticle filterLatent variableMaximum likelihoodFilter (signal processing)MathematicsApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationStatisticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When used as a surrogate objective for maximum likelihood estimation in latent variable models, the evidence lower bound (ELBO) produces state-of-the-art results. Inspired by this, we consider the extension of the ELBO to a family of lower bounds defined by a particle filter's estimator of the marginal likelihood, the filtering variational objectives (FIVOs). FIVOs take the same arguments as the ELBO, but can exploit a model's sequential structure to form tighter bounds. We present results that relate the tightness of FIVO's bound to the variance of the particle filter's estimator by considering the generic case of bounds defined as log-transformed likelihood estimators. Experimentally, we show that training with FIVO results in substantial improvements over training the same model architecture with the ELBO on sequential data.

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)0.028
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.129 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207