MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414149740 · doi:10.1016/j.jmva.2025.105507

Tree Pólya Splitting distributions for multivariate count data

2025· article· en· W4414149740 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel Valiquette, Jean Peyhardi, Éric Marchand, Gwladys Toulemonde, Frédéric Mortier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multivariate Analysis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsCount dataMultivariate statisticsTree (set theory)Multivariate analysisDistribution (mathematics)

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 offer some flexibility, allowing for the modeling of complex dependence structures (positive, negative, or null) at the observation level. Specifically, we present 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 microbial analysis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.320 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multivariate AnalysisSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207