MCMC for Imbalanced Categorical Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many modern applications collect highly imbalanced categorical data, with some categories relatively rare. Bayesian hierarchical models combat data sparsity by borrowing information, while also quantifying uncertainty. However, posterior computation presents a fundamental barrier to routine use; a single class of algorithms does not work well in all settings and practitioners waste time trying different types of Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approaches. This article was motivated by an application to quantitative advertising in which we encountered extremely poor computational performance for data augmentation MCMC algorithms but obtained excellent performance for adaptive Metropolis. To obtain a deeper understanding of this behavior, we derive theoretical results on the computational complexity of commonly used data augmentation algorithms and the Random Walk Metropolis algorithm for highly imbalanced binary data. In this regime, our results show computational complexity of Metropolis is logarithmic in sample size, while data augmentation is polynomial in sample size. The root cause of this poor performance of data augmentation is a discrepancy between the rates at which the target density and MCMC step sizes concentrate. Our methods also show that MCMC algorithms that exhibit a similar discrepancy will fail in large samples—a result with substantial practical impact. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".