MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311305973 · doi:10.1080/10618600.2022.2157835

Dependence Model Assessment and Selection with DecoupleNets

2022· article· en· W4311305973 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Model selectionComputer scienceEconometricsMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractNeural networks are suggested for learning a map from d-dimensional samples with any underlying dependence structure to multivariate uniformity in d′ dimensions. This map, termed DecoupleNet, is used for dependence model assessment and selection. If the data-generating dependence model was known, and if it was among the few analytically tractable ones, one such transformation for d′=d is Rosenblatt's transform. DecoupleNets have multiple advantages. For example, they only require an available sample and are applicable to d′<d, in particular d′=2. This allows for simpler model assessment and selection, both numerically and, because d′=2, especially graphically. A graphical assessment method has the advantage of being able to identify why, or in which region of the domain, a candidate model does not provide an adequate fit, thus, leading to model selection in particular regions of interest or improved model building strategies in such regions. Through simulation studies with data from various copulas, the feasibility and validity of this novel DecoupleNet approach is demonstrated. Applications to real world data illustrate its usefulness for model assessment and selection. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.Keywords: CopulasGraphical approachModel assessmentModel selectionNeural networksRosenblatt transformation Supplementary MaterialsAll types of results can be reproduced with the code accompanying this publication and the R package gnn in its current latest version 0.0-4.Disclosure StatementThe authors report there are no competing interests to declare.Additional informationFundingThe author acknowledges support from NSERC (RGPIN-2016-03876).

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.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.262 · 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