Incremental Mixture Importance Sampling With Shotgun Optimization
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
<b>This article proposes a general optimization strategy, which combines results from different optimization or parameter estimation methods to overcome shortcomings of a single method. Shotgun optimization is developed as a framework which employs different optimization strategies, criteria, or conditional targets to enable wider likelihood exploration. The introduced shotgun optimization approach is embedded into an incremental mixture importance sampling algorithm to produce improved posterior samples for multimodal densities and creates robustness in cases where the likelihood and prior are in disagreement. Despite using different optimization approaches, the samples are combined into samples from a single target posterior. The diversity of the framework is demonstrated on parameter estimation from differential equation models employing diverse strategies including numerical solutions and approximations thereof. Additionally the approach is demonstrated on mixtures of discrete and continuous parameters and is shown to ease estimation from synthetic likelihood models. R code of the implemented examples can be found at</b>https://github.com/BiljanaJSJ/IMIS-ShOpt<b>. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.</b>
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 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