MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407831903 · doi:10.1109/icdm59182.2024.00045

A Bayesian Hierarchical Model for Orthogonal Tucker Decomposition with Oblivious Tensor Compression

2024· article· en· W4407831903 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Pietrosanu, Bei Jiang, Linglong Kong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicTensor decomposition and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTucker decompositionDecompositionTensor decompositionCompression (physics)Tensor (intrinsic definition)Computer scienceBayesian probabilityMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsPure mathematicsChemistryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-rank representations such as the Tucker decomposition underlie many frequentist methods for tensor analysis. Bayesian analogues, in contrast, have received less attention. Notably missing in the literature is a Bayesian Tucker decomposition with orthogonal factor matrices-a standard interpretability restriction in frequentist settings. We propose a Bayesian hierarchical model for the orthogonal Tucker decomposition, which we implement via conditionally conjugate Gibbs sampler. To reduce the complexity of tensor operations in MCMC estimation, we incorporate a mechanism that uses Johnson-Lindenstrauss embeddings to compress data. Our theoretical analysis bounds change in the full-conditional posterior distributions of tensor components due to compression (with respect to Hellinger distance). We further establish posterior consistency for the decomposition's factor matrices in settings where these parameters are shared across tensor observations. Empirical results show that, for large tensor datasets, moderate compression can significantly reduce draw time (by about 50%) with only a moderate increase (up to about 15%) in median reconstruction error. Compression in the proposed model additionally enables analyses of tensor data that are too large to be held wholly in memory, thus making large-scale analyses tractable on even moderate computing resources.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTensor decomposition and applicationsFrench-language works237,207