MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403295841 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012414

Bayesian polynomial neural networks and polynomial neural ordinary differential equations

2024· article· en· W4403295841 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Colby Fronk, Jae-Woong Yun, Prashant Singh, Linda Petzold

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchRheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität BonnOffice of the President, University of CaliforniaMaterials Research Science and Engineering Center, Harvard UniversityUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraChina Scholarship CouncilUniversity of California, San DiegoUniversity of TorontoUniversiteit van AmsterdamNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCalifornia NanoSystems InstituteAalto-YliopistoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsApplied mathematicsMarkov chain Monte CarloPolynomialArtificial neural networkComputer scienceOrdinary differential equationInferenceBayesian inferenceOdeMathematicsBayesian probabilityLaplace's methodAlgorithmDifferential equationMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Symbolic regression with polynomial neural networks and polynomial neural ordinary differential equations (ODEs) are two recent and powerful approaches for equation recovery of many science and engineering problems. However, these methods provide point estimates for the model parameters and are currently unable to accommodate noisy data. We address this challenge by developing and validating the following Bayesian inference methods: the Laplace approximation, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling methods, and variational inference. We have found the Laplace approximation to be the best method for this class of problems. Our work can be easily extended to the broader class of symbolic neural networks to which the polynomial neural network belongs.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207