MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204314768 · doi:10.1214/21-ba1290

Functional Central Limit Theorems for Stick-Breaking Priors

2021· article· en· W3204314768 on OpenAlexafffund
Yaozhong Hu, Junxi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueBayesian Analysis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMathematicsCentral limit theoremDirichlet processApplied mathematicsDirichlet distributionLimit (mathematics)Prior probabilityMathematical analysisBayesian probabilityStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We obtain the strong law of large numbers, Glivenko-Cantelli theorem, central limit theorem, functional central limit theorem for various Bayesian nonparametric priors which include the stick-breaking process with general stick-breaking weights, the two-parameter Poisson-Dirichlet process, the normalized inverse Gaussian process, the normalized generalized gamma process, and the generalized Dirichlet process. For the stick-breaking process with general stick-breaking weights, we introduce two general conditions such that the central limit theorem and functional central limit theorem hold. Except in the case of the generalized Dirichlet process, since the finite dimensional distributions of these processes are either hard to obtain or are complicated to use even they are available, we use the method of moments to obtain the convergence results. For the generalized Dirichlet process we use its marginal distributions to obtain the asymptotics although the computations are highly technical.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBayesian AnalysisSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207