MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950540981 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0912.1586

Dynamic Trees for Learning and Design

2009· preprint· en· W2950540981 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew A. Taddy, Robert B. Gramacy, Nicholas G. Polson

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsBooth University College
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceTree (set theory)Machine learningInferenceMultinomial distributionArtificial intelligenceRegressionPartition (number theory)Decision treeData miningMathematicsEconometricsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic regression trees are an attractive option for automatic regression and classification with complicated response surfaces in on-line application settings. We create a sequential tree model whose state changes in time with the accumulation of new data, and provide particle learning algorithms that allow for the efficient on-line posterior filtering of tree-states. A major advantage of tree regression is that it allows for the use of very simple models within each partition. The model also facilitates a natural division of labor in our sequential particle-based inference: tree dynamics are defined through a few potential changes that are local to each newly arrived observation, while global uncertainty is captured by the ensemble of particles. We consider both constant and linear mean functions at the tree leaves, along with multinomial leaves for classification problems, and propose default prior specifications that allow for prediction to be integrated over all model parameters conditional on a given tree. Inference is illustrated in some standard nonparametric regression examples, as well as in the setting of sequential experiment design, including both active learning and optimization applications, and in on-line classification. We detail implementation guidelines and problem specific methodology for each of these motivating applications. Throughout, it is demonstrated that our practical approach is able to provide better results compared to commonly used methods at a fraction of the cost.

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)0.020
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.144 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207