MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963848397

{Accurate and conservative estimates of MRF log-likelihood using reverse annealing}

2015· article· en· W2963848397 on OpenAlexaff
Yuri Burda, Roger Grosse, Ruslan Salakhutdinov

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorMarkov chain Monte CarloMathematicsMarkov chainMarkov random fieldStatisticsPartition (number theory)Upper and lower boundsAlgorithmSimulated annealingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsBayesian probability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Markov random fields (MRFs) are difficult to evaluate as generative models because computing the test log-probabilities requires the intractable partition function. Annealed importance sampling (AIS) is widely used to estimate MRF partition functions, and often yields quite accurate results. However, AIS is prone to overestimate the log-likelihood with little indication that anything is wrong. We present the Reverse AIS Estimator (RAISE), a stochastic lower bound on the log-likelihood of an approximation to the original MRF model. RAISE requires only the same MCMC transition operators as standard AIS. Experimental results indicate that RAISE agrees closely with AIS log-probability estimates for RBMs, DBMs, and DBNs, but typically errs on the side of underestimating, rather than overestimating, the log-likelihood.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.143 · 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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and StatisticsSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207