MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771156384 · doi:10.3390/e19120687

Choosing between Higher Moment Maximum Entropy Models and Its Application to Homogeneous Point Processes with Random Effects

2017· article· en· W2771156384 on OpenAlexaff
Lotfi Khribi, Brenda MacGibbon, Marc Frédette

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoisson distributionPrinciple of maximum entropyKullback–Leibler divergenceDivergence (linguistics)MathematicsEntropy (arrow of time)Bayesian probabilityStatistical physicsHomogeneousMeasure (data warehouse)Prior probabilityApplied mathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsMathematical optimizationData miningPhysicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Bayesian framework, the usual choice of prior in the prediction of homogeneous Poisson processes with random effects is the gamma one. Here, we propose the use of higher order maximum entropy priors. Their advantage is illustrated in a simulation study and the choice of the best order is established by two goodness-of-fit criteria: Kullback–Leibler divergence and a discrepancy measure. This procedure is illustrated on a warranty data set from the automobile industry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207