MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169070694 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-8381

The Method of Forced Probabilities: a Computation Trick for Bayesian Model Evidence

2021· article· en· W3169070694 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Walter, Ishani Banerjee, Anneli Guthke, Kevin J. Mumford, Wolfgang Nowak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwap (finance)Bayesian probabilityComputationPrior probabilityMetric (unit)Markov chainComputer scienceMarkov chain Monte CarloAlgorithmProbabilistic logicMathematicsBayesian inferenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Bayesian model selection (BMS) can be used to objectively rank competing models of different structure and with different parameters upon comparison with validation data sets. This technique requires the evaluation of Bayesian Model Evidence (BME). BME is the likelihood of the data to occur under the assumed models, where the likelihood is averaged over the probability distribution of the model and its parameters.</p><p>Exact and fast analytical solutions for BME exist only with strong assumptions. For that reason, other techniques and approximations for BMS/BME have been developed. While mathematical approximations via information criteria may suffer from strong biases in real-world applications, numerical methods do not rely on any assumptions but require high computational effort. This becomes prohibitive if the data set is very large, e.g. highly resolved in space and time.</p><p>To still enable the use of BME as a probabilistic and rigorous model performance metric, we have developed the “Method of Forced Probabilities”: this method is a fast way to numerically compute BME for models that predict time series and fulfill the Markov Chain property in time. The core idea is to swap the direction of evaluation: instead of comparing thousands of forward runs of the model with the observed data (many model runs on random parameter realizations), we force the model to follow the data during each time step and record the individual probabilities of the model performing these exact transitions (single evaluation).</p><p>As a test case for demonstration, we use invasion percolation (IP) models to simulate multiphase flow in porous media. The underlying, highly resolved data set was obtained from an experiment of a slow gas injection into water-saturated, homogeneous sand in a 25cmx25cm acrylic glass cell. Images were obtained at a rate of 30 images per second using the light transmission technique. Since IP models fulfill the Markov chain property, the Method of Forced Probabilities can be applied to evaluate their BME. Results confirm that the proposed method presents a scalable, inexpensive alternative to standard Monte Carlo methods for analyzing the model-data mismatch.</p>

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207