MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381512122 · doi:10.3390/a16070310

Probability Density Estimation through Nonparametric Adaptive Partitioning and Stitching

2023· article· en· W4381512122 on OpenAlexaff
Zach D. Merino, Jenny Farmer, Donald J. Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithms · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte
KeywordsKernel density estimationProbability density functionDensity estimationAlgorithmNonparametric statisticsCumulative distribution functionMathematicsRangingBlock (permutation group theory)Probability distributionParametric statisticsVariable kernel density estimationComputer scienceMultivariate kernel density estimationPrinciple of maximum entropyStatisticsKernel methodArtificial intelligenceEstimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a novel nonparametric adaptive partitioning and stitching (NAPS) algorithm to estimate a probability density function (PDF) of a single variable. Sampled data is partitioned into blocks using a branching tree algorithm that minimizes deviations from a uniform density within blocks of various sample sizes arranged in a staggered format. The block sizes are constructed to balance the load in parallel computing as the PDF for each block is independently estimated using the nonparametric maximum entropy method (NMEM) previously developed for automated high throughput analysis. Once all block PDFs are calculated, they are stitched together to provide a smooth estimate throughout the sample range. Each stitch is an averaging process over weight factors based on the estimated cumulative distribution function (CDF) and a complementary CDF that characterize how data from flanking blocks overlap. Benchmarks on synthetic data show that our PDF estimates are fast and accurate for sample sizes ranging from 29 to 227, across a diverse set of distributions that account for single and multi-modal distributions with heavy tails or singularities. We also generate estimates by replacing NMEM with kernel density estimation (KDE) within blocks. Our results indicate that NAPS(NMEM) is the best-performing method overall, while NAPS(KDE) improves estimates near boundaries compared to standard KDE.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlgorithmsSame topicGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207