MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386035721 · doi:10.1214/23-aos2284

Pairwise interaction function estimation of stationary Gibbs point processes using basis expansion

2023· article· en· W4386035721 on OpenAlexaff
Ismaïla Ba, Jean‐François Coeurjolly, Francisco Cuevas‐Pacheco

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Statistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPairwise comparisonMathematicsPoint processLogarithmAsymptotic distributionConditional probability distributionConsistency (knowledge bases)Event (particle physics)Applied mathematicsStatisticsMathematical analysisEstimatorDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The class of Gibbs point processes (GPP) is a large class of spatial point processes able to model both clustered and repulsive point patterns. They are specified by their conditional intensity, which for a point pattern x and a location u, is roughly speaking the probability that an event occurs in an infinitesimal ball around u given the rest of the configuration is x. The most simple and natural class of models is the class of pairwise interaction point processes where the conditional intensity depends on the number of points and pairwise distances between them. This paper is concerned with the problem of estimating the pairwise interaction function nonparametrically. We propose to estimate it using an orthogonal series expansion of its logarithm. Such an approach has numerous advantages compared to existing ones. The estimation procedure is simple, fast and completely data-driven. We provide asymptotic properties such as consistency and asymptotic normality and show the efficiency of the procedure through simulation experiments and illustrate it with several 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.143 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of StatisticsSame topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207