MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963656411 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11341

Approximate Bayesian estimation in large coloured graphical Gaussian models

2017· article· en· W2963656411 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Qiong Li, Xin Gao, Hélène Massam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsGraphical modelGaussianRate of convergenceBayesian probabilityApplied mathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Bounded functionStatisticsComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Distributed estimation methods have recently been used to compute the maximum likelihood estimate of the precision matrix for large graphical Gaussian models. Our aim, in this article, is to give a Bayesian estimate of the precision matrix for large graphical Gaussian models with, additionally, symmetry constraints imposed by an underlying graph which is coloured. We take the sample posterior mean of the precision matrix as our estimate. We study its asymptotic behaviour under the regular asymptotic regime when the number of variablespis fixed and under the double asymptotic regime when bothpandngrow to infinity. We show in particular that when the number of parameters of the local models is uniformly bounded the standard convergence rate of our estimate of the precision matrix to its true value, in the Frobenius norm, compares well with the rates in the current literature for the maximum likelihood estimate.The Canadian Journal of Statistics46: 176–203; 2018 © 2017 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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207