MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206048154 · doi:10.52933/jdssv.v1i2.11

A Stepwise Approach for High-Dimensional Gaussian Graphical Models

2021· article· en· W3206048154 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruben H. Zamar, Marcelo Ruiz, Ginette Lafit, Javier Nogales

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Data Science Statistics and Visualisation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGraphical modelPartial correlationGaussianCorrelationStepwise regressionLasso (programming language)Computer scienceAlgorithmGraphRelation (database)MinificationExploitCanonical correlationMathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceData miningMachine learningTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a stepwise approach to estimate high dimensional Gaussian graphicalmodels. We exploit the relation between the partial correlation coefficientsand the distribution of the prediction errors, and parametrize the model in termsof the Pearson correlation coefficients between the prediction errors of the nodes’best linear predictors. We propose a novel stepwise algorithm for detecting pairsof conditionally dependent variables. We compare the proposed algorithm withexisting methods including graphical lasso (Glasso), constrained `l1-minimization(CLIME) and equivalent partial correlation (EPC), via simulation studies andreal life applications. In our simulation study we consider several model settingsand report the results using different performance measures that look at desirablefeatures of the recovered graph.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 venueJournal of Data Science Statistics and VisualisationSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207