MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004816779 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11645

A test for independence via Bayesian nonparametric estimation of mutual information

2021· preprint· en· W3004816779 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Luai Al‐Labadi, Forough Fazeli Asl, Zahra Saberi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMutual informationFrequentist inferenceIndependence (probability theory)Dirichlet processNonparametric statisticsConditional independenceMathematicsBayesian probabilityEconometricsEstimationStatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceData miningBayesian inferenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutual information is a well‐known tool to measure the mutual dependence between variables. In this article, a Bayesian nonparametric estimator of mutual information is established by means of the Dirichlet process and the k ‐nearest neighbour distance. As a result, an easy‐to‐implement test of independence is introduced through the relative belief ratio. Several theoretical properties of the approach are presented. The procedure is illustrated through various examples and is compared with its frequentist counterpart.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207