MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787986197 · doi:10.4230/lipics.icalp.2018.141

The Beta-Bernoulli process and algebraic effects

2018· preprint· en· W2787986197 on OpenAlexaff
Sam Staton, Dario Stein, Hongseok Yang, Nathanael Ackerman, Cameron E. Freer, Daniel M. Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMinistry of Science and ICT, South Korea
KeywordsBernoulli's principleComputer scienceBernoulli processAlgebraic numberTheoretical computer scienceProcess (computing)Semantics (computer science)Bayesian probabilityBlock (permutation group theory)MathematicsAlgebra over a fieldProgramming languageArtificial intelligencePure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we use the framework of algebraic effects from programming language theory to analyze the Beta-Bernoulli process, a standard building block in Bayesian models. Our analysis reveals the importance of abstract data types, and two types of program equations, called commutativity and discardability. We develop an equational theory of terms that use the Beta-Bernoulli process, and show that the theory is complete with respect to the measure-theoretic semantics, and also in the syntactic sense of Post. Our analysis has a potential for being generalized to other stochastic processes relevant to Bayesian modelling, yielding new understanding of these processes from the perspective of programming.

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)0.015
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207