MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7007950857

Assessing the quality of posterior samples from No-U-Turn Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

2020· dissertation· en· W7007950857 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Stability (learning theory)Calculus (dental)Distribution (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABR G La prsence de transitions divergentes dans les chantillons postrieurs gnrs par Stan compromet les proprits d'chantillons finis des estimateurs HMC cause d'une perte d'ergodicit gomtrique.Mme si ces divergences sont trs utiles pour identifier des problmes avec l'exploration de la distribution postrieure, il n'existe pas encore de mthode claire pour diminuer ou liminer ces transitions divergentes pour un modle gnral.Pour quelques modles, la meilleure solution est de prendre des chantillons avec des pas plus petits.Pour d'autres, reparamtrer tout le modle pourrait tre ncessaire.Ce travail examine en dtail les comportements de divergence.Nous utilisons d'abord les donnes de l'exemple 'Eight Schools' pour montrer que ces divergences empirent la qualit des chantillons gnrs par Stan.Nous discutons ensuite quelques options pour dterminer si un modle a besoin de plus petit pas ou d'un reparamtrage complet pour gnrer des chantillons de qualit.Dans le dernier chapitre, nous adaptons un modle conu pour des expriences d'incubation de sol pour montrer que, malgr un grand nombre de transitions divergentes dans les premiers rsultats, il est possible de gnrer des chantillons de plus haute qualit en rduisant simplement la taille de pas dans notre modle.De plus, nous montrons que certaines transitions divergentes peuvent avoir un effet sur les estimations de certains paramtres plus que sur d'autres.

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)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsFrench-language works237,207