Computational methods for birth‐death processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many important stochastic counting models can be written as general birth-death processes (BDPs). BDPs are continuous-time Markov chains on the non-negative integers in which only jumps to adjacent states are allowed. BDPs can be used to easily parameterize a rich variety of probability distributions on the non-negative integers, and straightforward conditions guarantee that these distributions are proper. BDPs also provide a mechanistic interpretation - birth and death of actual particles or organisms - that has proven useful in evolution, ecology, physics, and chemistry. Although the theoretical properties of general BDPs are well understood, traditionally statistical work on BDPs has been limited to the simple linear (Kendall) process. Aside from a few simple cases, it remains impossible to find analytic expressions for the likelihood of a discretely-observed BDP, and computational difficulties have hindered development of tools for statistical inference. But the gap between BDP theory and practical methods for estimation has narrowed in recent years. There are now robust methods for evaluating likelihoods for realizations of BDPs: finite-time transition, first passage, equilibrium probabilities, and distributions of summary statistics that arise commonly in applications. Recent work has also exploited the connection between continuously- and discretely-observed BDPs to derive EM algorithms for maximum likelihood estimation. Likelihood-based inference for previously intractable BDPs is much easier than previously thought and regression approaches analogous to Poisson regression are straightforward to derive. In this review, we outline the basic mathematical theory for BDPs and demonstrate new tools for statistical inference using data from BDPs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".