MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400905217 · doi:10.1109/lra.2024.3432350

A Hessian for Gaussian Mixture Likelihoods in Nonlinear Least Squares

2024· article· en· W4400905217 on OpenAlexafffund
Vassili Korotkine, Mitchell Cohen, James Richard Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHessian matrixLeast-squares function approximationNonlinear systemNon-linear least squaresMathematicsApplied mathematicsGaussianMixture modelMathematical optimizationStatisticsExplained sum of squaresChemistryPhysicsComputational chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter proposes a novel Hessian approximation for Maximum a Posteriori estimation problems in robotics involving Gaussian mixture likelihoods. Previous approaches manipulate the Gaussian mixture likelihood into a form that allows the problem to be represented as a nonlinear least squares (NLS) problem. The resulting Hessian approximation used within NLS solvers from these approaches neglects certain nonlinearities. The proposed Hessian approximation is derived by setting the Hessians of the Gaussian mixture component errors to zero, which is the same starting point as for the Gauss-Newton Hessian approximation for NLS, and using the chain rule to account for additional nonlinearities. The proposed Hessian approximation results in improved convergence speed and uncertainty characterization for simulated experiments, and similar performance to the state of the art on real-world experiments. A method to maintain compatibility with existing solvers, such as <monospace xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">ceres</monospace>, is also presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207