Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boosting variational inference (BVI) approximates an intractable probability density by iteratively building up a mixture of simple component distributions one at a time, using techniques from sparse convex optimization to provide both computational scalability and approximation error guarantees. But the guarantees have strong conditions that do not often hold in practice, resulting in degenerate component optimization problems; and we show that the ad-hoc regularization used to prevent degeneracy in practice can cause BVI to fail in unintuitive ways. We thus develop universal boosting variational inference (UBVI), a BVI scheme that exploits the simple geometry of probability densities under the Hellinger metric to prevent the degeneracy of other gradient-based BVI methods, avoid difficult joint optimizations of both component and weight, and simplify fully-corrective weight optimizations. We show that for any target density and any mixture component family, the output of UBVI converges to the best possible approximation in the mixture family, even when the mixture family is misspecified. We develop a scalable implementation based on exponential family mixture components and standard stochastic optimization techniques. Finally, we discuss statistical benefits of the Hellinger distance as a variational objective through bounds on posterior probability, moment, and importance sampling errors. Experiments on multiple datasets and models show that UBVI provides reliable, accurate posterior approximations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".