A two‐step proximal‐point algorithm for the calculus of divergence‐based estimators in finite mixture models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimators derived from the expectation‐maximization (EM) algorithm are not robust since they are based on the maximization of the likelihood function. We propose an iterative proximal‐point algorithm based on the EM algorithm to minimize a divergence criterion between a mixture model and the unknown distribution that generates the data. The algorithm estimates in each iteration the proportions and the parameters of the mixture components in two separate steps. Resulting estimators are generally robust against outliers and misspecification of the model. Convergence properties of our algorithm are studied. The convergence of the introduced algorithm is discussed on a two‐component Weibull mixture entailing a condition on the initialization of the EM algorithm in order for the latter to converge. Simulations on Gaussian and Weibull mixture models using different statistical divergences are provided to confirm the validity of our work and the robustness of the resulting estimators against outliers in comparison to the EM algorithm. An application to a dataset of velocities of galaxies is also presented.The Canadian Journal of Statistics47: 392–408; 2019 © 2019 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".