MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388732122 · doi:10.1137/22m1517135

Estimating a Potential Without the Agony of the Partition Function

2023· article· en· W4388732122 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorComputationNormalization (sociology)Mathematical optimizationPartition (number theory)MathematicsOptimization problemPartition function (quantum field theory)AlgorithmMaximum a posteriori estimationApplied mathematicsPartition problemA priori and a posterioriComputer scienceMaximum likelihoodStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating a Gibbs density function given a sample is an important problem in computational statistics and statistical learning. Although the well established maximum likelihood method is commonly used, it requires the computation of the partition function (i.e., the normalization of the density). This function can be easily calculated for simple low-dimensional problems but its computation is difficult or even intractable for general densities and high-dimensional problems. In this paper we propose an alternative approach based on maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimators, which we name maximum recovery MAP, to derive estimators that do not require the computation of the partition function, and reformulate the problem as an optimization problem. We further propose a least-action type potential that allows us to quickly solve the optimization problem as a feed-forward hyperbolic neural network. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods on some standard 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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.225 · 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