MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7105913978 · doi:10.23952/jano.7.2025.3.07

Variable Bregman majorization-minimization algorithm and its application to Dirichlet maximum likelihood estimation

2025· article· en· W7105913978 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied and Numerical Optimization · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBerlin Mathematics Research Center MATH+Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMaximum likelihoodVariable (mathematics)Expectation–maximization algorithmEstimationDirichlet distributionEstimation theoryMaximum likelihood sequence estimation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a novel Bregman descent algorithm for minimizing a convex function that is expressed as the sum of a differentiable part (defined over an open set) and a possibly nonsmooth term.The approach, referred to as the Variable Bregman Majorization-Minimization (VBMM) algorithm, extends the Bregman Proximal Gradient method by allowing the Bregman function used in the divergence to adaptively vary at each iteration, provided it satisfies a majorizing condition on the objective function.This adaptive framework enables the algorithm to approximate the objective more precisely at each iteration, thereby allowing for accelerated convergence compared to the traditional Bregman Proximal Gradient descent.We establish the convergence of the VBMM algorithm to a minimizer under mild assumptions on the family of metrics used.Furthermore, we introduce a novel application of both the Bregman Proximal Gradient method and the VBMM algorithm to the estimation of the multidimensional parameters of a Dirichlet distribution through the maximization of its log-likelihood.Numerical experiments confirm that the VBMM algorithm outperforms existing approaches in terms of convergence speed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied and Numerical OptimizationSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207