Particle Flow Particle Filter using Gromov's method
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Particle flow filters obtain impressive results in challenging high dimensional, non-linear sequential state estimation problems. In contrast to a particle filter, which uses importance sampling to approximate the posterior distribution of the state, the flow based algorithms solve a differential equation to migrate the particles from the prior to the posterior distribution. However, the particles after the flow are not true samples of the posterior distribution due to strong model assumptions required for the derivation of the flow and the approximations associated with the numerical solution. This affects performance adversely in many highly non-linear, non-Gaussian filtering problems. Particle Flow Particle Filters (PFPF) adapt the particle flow procedure to construct a proposal density inside the particle filter. These techniques can outperform the underlying particle flow algorithms by compensating for the approximations in the flow calculations via update of importance weights after the flow, at the cost of a negligible increase in the computational complexity. Most of the PFPF approaches have focused on using a deterministic particle flow. In this paper, we develop a PFPF algorithm using a stochastic particle flow based on Gromov's method. Numerical simulations are conducted to examine when the proposed method offers advantages compared to existing techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it