MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945860003 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.06261

Simultaneous Inference for Pairwise Graphical Models with Generalized Score Matching

2019· preprint· en· W2945860003 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Yu, Varun Gupta, Mladen Kolar

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsBooth University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraphical modelEstimatorInferenceStatistical inferenceFrequentist inferenceComputer sciencePairwise comparisonStatistical modelModel selectionGaussianAlgorithmMathematicsPredictive inferenceData miningArtificial intelligenceBayesian inferenceStatisticsBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Probabilistic graphical models provide a flexible yet parsimonious framework for modeling dependencies among nodes in networks. There is a vast literature on parameter estimation and consistent model selection for graphical models. However, in many of the applications, scientists are also interested in quantifying the uncertainty associated with the estimated parameters and selected models, which current literature has not addressed thoroughly. In this paper, we propose a novel estimator for statistical inference on edge parameters in pairwise graphical models based on generalized Hyvärinen scoring rule. Hyvärinen scoring rule is especially useful in cases where the normalizing constant cannot be obtained efficiently in a closed form, which is a common problem for graphical models, including Ising models and truncated Gaussian graphical models. Our estimator allows us to perform statistical inference for general graphical models whereas the existing works mostly focus on statistical inference for Gaussian graphical models where finding normalizing constant is computationally tractable. Under mild conditions that are typically assumed in the literature for consistent estimation, we prove that our proposed estimator is $\sqrt{n}$-consistent and asymptotically normal, which allows us to construct confidence intervals and build hypothesis tests for edge parameters. Moreover, we show how our proposed method can be applied to test hypotheses that involve a large number of model parameters simultaneously. We illustrate validity of our estimator through extensive simulation studies on a diverse collection of data-generating processes.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.074 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207