MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200858256 · doi:10.1002/sta4.421

Parsimonious mixture‐of‐experts based on mean mixture of multivariate normal distributions

2021· article· en· W3200858256 on OpenAlexaff
Afsaneh Sepahdar, Mohsen Madadi, N. Balakrishnan, Ahad Jamalizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueStat · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsCluster analysisMultivariate normal distributionExpectation–maximization algorithmMixture modelData setArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer scienceRobust regressionStatisticsMachine learningRegressionMaximum likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mixture‐of‐experts (MoE) paradigm attempts to learn complex models by combining several “experts” via probabilistic mixture models. Each expert in the MoE model handles a small area of the data space in which a gating function controls the data‐to‐expert assignment. The MoE framework has been used extensively in designing non‐linear models in machine learning and statistics to model the heterogeneity in data for the purpose of regression, classification and clustering. The existing MoE of multi‐target regression (MoE‐MTR) models for continuous data is based on multivariate normal distributions. However, in many practical situations, for a set of data, a group or groups of observations may exhibit asymmetric and heavy‐tailed behaviour, and inference based on symmetric distributions in such situations can unduly affect the fit of the regression model. We introduce here a novel robust multivariate non‐normal MoE model by the use of mean mixture of normal distributions. The proposed model can handle the issues of MoE‐MTR models regarding possibly skewed, heavy‐tailed and noisy data. Maximum likelihood estimates of model parameters are developed based on an expectation‐maximization (EM)‐type algorithm. Parsimony is also obtained by imposing suitable constraints on the expert dispersion matrices. The usefulness of the proposed methodology is illustrated using simulated and real data sets.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207