A probabilistic diagnostic for Laplace approximations: Introduction and experimentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many models require integrals of high‐dimensional functions: for instance, to obtain marginal likelihoods. Such integrals may be intractable, or too expensive to compute numerically. Instead, we can use the Laplace approximation (LA). The LA is exact if the function is proportional to a normal density; its effectiveness therefore depends on the function's true shape. Here, we propose the use of the probabilistic numerical framework to develop a diagnostic for the LA and its underlying shape assumptions, modelling the function and its integral as a Gaussian process and devising a “test” by conditioning on a finite number of function values. The test is decidedly non asymptotic and is not intended as a full substitute for numerical integration ‐ rather, it is simply intended to test the feasibility of the assumptions underpinning the LA with minimal computation. We discuss approaches to optimize and design the test, apply it to known sample functions, and highlight the challenges of high dimensions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".