MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174975903

A Score-and-Search Approach to Learning Bayesian Networks with Noisy-OR Relations

2020· article· en· W3174975903 on OpenAlexaff
Charupriya Sharma, Zhenyu A. Liao, James Cussens, Peter van Beek

Bibliographic record

VenueBristol Research (University of Bristol) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian networkGraphical modelDirected acyclic graphComputer scienceConditional independenceMachine learningArtificial intelligencePruningNode (physics)Probabilistic logicBayesian probabilityContext (archaeology)Data miningAlgorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Bayesian network is a probabilistic graphical model that consists of a directed acyclic graph (DAG), where each node is a random variable and attached to each node is a conditional probability distribution (CPD). A Bayesian network can be learned from data using the well-known score-and-search approach, and within this approach a key consideration is how to simultaneously learn the global structure in the form of the underlying DAG and the local structure in the CPDs. Several useful forms of local structure have been identified in the literature but thus far the score-and-search approach has only been extended to handle local structure in form of context-specific independence. In this paper, we show how to extend the score-and-search approach to the important and widely useful case of noisy-OR relations. We provide an effective gradient descent algorithm to score a candidate noisy-OR using the widely used BIC score and we provide pruning rules that allow the search to successfully scale to medium sized networks. Our empirical results provide evidence for the success of our approach to learning Bayesian networks that incorporate noisy-OR relations.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.173 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBristol Research (University of Bristol)Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207