MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963436208

Optimal Subsampling with Influence Functions

2018· article· en· W2963436208 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Information Processing Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsymptotically optimal algorithmEstimatorProbabilistic logicComputer scienceMathematical optimizationFunction (biology)Class (philosophy)Statistical modelImportance samplingApplied mathematicsMathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMonte Carlo method
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subsampling is a common and often effective method to deal with the computational challenges of large datasets. However, for most statistical models, there is no well-motivated approach for drawing a non-uniform subsample. We show that the concept of an asymptotically linear estimator and the associated influence function leads to asymptotically optimal sampling probabilities for a wide class of popular models. This is the only tight optimality result for subsampling we are aware of as other methods only provide probabilistic error bounds or optimal rates. Furthermore, for linear regression models, which have well-studied procedures for non-uniform subsampling, we empirically show our optimal influence function based method outperforms previous approaches even when using approximations to the optimal probabilities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.279 · 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