MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396244365 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.19528

Tree Pólya Splitting distributions for multivariate count data

2024· preprint· en· W4396244365 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel Valiquette, Jean Peyhardi, Éric Marchand, Gwladys Toulemonde, Frédéric Mortier

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsTree (set theory)MathematicsStatisticsGeographyCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we develop a new class of multivariate distributions adapted for count data, called Tree Pólya Splitting. This class results from the combination of a univariate distribution and singular multivariate distributions along a fixed partition tree. Known distributions, including the Dirichlet-multinomial, the generalized Dirichlet-multinomial and the Dirichlet-tree multinomial, are particular cases within this class. As we will demonstrate, these distributions are flexible, allowing for the modeling of complex dependence structures (positive, negative, or null) at the observation level. Specifically, we present the theoretical properties of Tree Pólya Splitting distributions by focusing primarily on marginal distributions, factorial moments, and dependence structures (covariance and correlations). A dataset of abundance of Trichoptera is used, on one hand, as a benchmark to illustrate the theoretical properties developed in this article, and on the other hand, to demonstrate the interest of these types of models, notably by comparing them to other approaches for fitting multivariate data, such as the Poisson-lognormal model in ecology or singular multivariate distributions used in microbiome.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
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 score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.092 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207