MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388940354 · doi:10.46298/entics.12279

Joint Distributions in Probabilistic Semantics

2023· article· en· W4388940354 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dexter Kozen, Alexandra Silva, Erik Voogd

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Notes in Theoretical Informatics and Computer Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsProbabilistic logicMorphismSemantics (computer science)Denotational semanticsJoint probability distributionSimple (philosophy)Class (philosophy)Joint (building)MathematicsComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsOperational semanticsProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various categories have been proposed as targets for the denotational semantics of higher-order probabilistic programming languages. One such proposal involves joint probability distributions (couplings) used in Bayesian statistical models with conditioning. In previous treatments, composition of joint measures was performed by disintegrating to obtain Markov kernels, composing the kernels, then reintegrating to obtain a joint measure. Disintegrations exist only under certain restrictions on the underlying spaces. In this paper we propose a category whose morphisms are joint finite measures in which composition is defined without reference to disintegration, allowing its application to a broader class of spaces. The category is symmetric monoidal with a pleasing symmetry in which the dagger structure is a simple transpose. Comment: 14 pages, MFPS 2023

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0070.024
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 venueElectronic Notes in Theoretical Informatics and Computer ScienceSame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207