Author manuscript, published in "NIPS Workshop on Representations and Inference on Probability Distributions, Whistler: Canada (2007)" On Probability Distributions for Trees: Representations, Inference and Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study probability distributions over free algebras of trees. Probability distributions can be seen as particular (formal power) tree series [BR82; EK03], i.e. mappings from trees to a semiring K. A widely studied class of tree series is the class of rational (or recognizable) tree series which can be defined either in an algebraic way or by means of multiplicity tree automata. We argue that the algebraic representation is very convenient to model probability distributions over a free algebra of trees. First, as in the string case, the algebraic representation allows to design learning algorithms for the whole class of probability distributions defined by rational tree series. Note that learning algorithms for rational tree series correspond to learning algorithms for weighted tree automata where both the structure and the weights are
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it