BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Måns Magnusson

Måns Magnusson contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyComputation and LanguageMachine LearningApplicationscs.CYDiscrete Mathematicsmath.PRmath.STStatistics Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
9topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2024arXiv

The Cambridge Law Corpus: A Dataset for Legal AI Research

We introduce the Cambridge Law Corpus (CLC), a dataset for legal AI research. It consists of over 250 000 court cases from the UK. Most cases are from the 21st century, but the corpus includes cases as old as the 16th century. This paper presents the first release of the corpus, containing the raw text and meta-data. Together with the corpus, we provide annotations on case outcomes for 638 cases, done by legal experts. Using our annotated data, we have trained and evaluated case outcome extraction with GPT-3, GPT-4 and RoBERTa models to provide benchmarks. We include an extensive legal and ethical discussion to address the potentially sensitive nature of this material. As a consequence, the corpus will only be released for research purposes under certain restrictions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Probabilistic Embeddings with Laplacian Graph Priors

We introduce probabilistic embeddings using Laplacian priors (PELP). The proposed model enables incorporating graph side-information into static word embeddings. We theoretically show that the model unifies several previously proposed embedding methods under one umbrella. PELP generalises graph-enhanced, group, dynamic, and cross-lingual static word embeddings. PELP also enables any combination of these previous models in a straightforward fashion. Furthermore, we empirically show that our model matches the performance of previous models as special cases. In addition, we demonstrate its flexibility by applying it to the comparison of political sociolects over time. Finally, we provide code as a TensorFlow implementation enabling flexible estimation in different settings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Unbiased estimator for the variance of the leave-one-out cross-validation estimator for a Bayesian normal model with fixed variance

When evaluating and comparing models using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO-CV), the uncertainty of the estimate is typically assessed using the variance of the sampling distribution. Considering the uncertainty is important, as the variability of the estimate can be high in some cases. An important result by Bengio and Grandvalet (2004) states that no general unbiased variance estimator can be constructed, that would apply for any utility or loss measure and any model. We show that it is possible to construct an unbiased estimator considering a specific predictive performance measure and model. We demonstrate an unbiased sampling distribution variance estimator for the Bayesian normal model with fixed model variance using the expected log pointwise predictive density (elpd) utility score. This example demonstrates that it is possible to obtain improved, problem-specific, unbiased estimators for assessing the uncertainty in LOO-CV estimation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Rapid mixing in unimodal landscapes and efficient simulatedannealing for multimodal distributions

We consider nearest neighbor weighted random walks on the $d$-dimensional box $[n]^d$ that are governed by some function $g:[0,1] \ra [0,\iy)$, by which we mean that standing at $x$, a neighbor $y$ of $x$ is picked at random and the walk then moves there with probability $(1/2)g(n^{-1}y)/(g(n^{-1}y)+g(n^{-1}x))$. We do this for $g$ of the form $f^{m_n}$ for some function $f$ which assumed to be analytically well-behaved and where $m_n \ra \iy$ as $n \ra \iy$. This class of walks covers an abundance of interesting special cases, e.g., the mean-field Potts model, posterior collapsed Gibbs sampling for Latent Dirichlet allocation and certain Bayesian posteriors for models in nuclear physics. The following are among the results of this paper: \begin{itemize} \item If $f$ is unimodal with negative definite Hessian at its global maximum, then the mixing time of the random walk is $O(n\log n)$. \item If $f$ is multimodal, then the mixing time is exponential in $n$, but we show that there is a simulated annealing scheme governed by $f^K$ for an increasing sequence of $K$ that mixes in time $O(n^2)$. Using a varying step size that decreases with $K$, this can be taken down to $O(n\log n)$. \item If the process is studied on a general graph rather than the $d$-dimensional box, a simulated annealing scheme expressed in terms of conductances of the underlying network, works similarly. \end{itemize} Several examples are given, including the ones mentioned above.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation for Bayesian Model Comparison in Large Data

Recently, new methods for model assessment, based on subsampling and posterior approximations, have been proposed for scaling leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO) to large datasets. Although these methods work well for estimating predictive performance for individual models, they are less powerful in model comparison. We propose an efficient method for estimating differences in predictive performance by combining fast approximate LOO surrogates with exact LOO subsampling using the difference estimator and supply proofs with regards to scaling characteristics. The resulting approach can be orders of magnitude more efficient than previous approaches, as well as being better suited to model comparison.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

When are Bayesian model probabilities overconfident?

Bayesian model comparison is often based on the posterior distribution over the set of compared models. This distribution is often observed to concentrate on a single model even when other measures of model fit or forecasting ability indicate no strong preference. Furthermore, a moderate change in the data sample can easily shift the posterior model probabilities to concentrate on another model. We document overconfidence in two high-profile applications in economics and neuroscience. To shed more light on the sources of overconfidence we derive the sampling variance of the Bayes factor in univariate and multivariate linear regression. The results show that overconfidence is likely to happen when i) the compared models give very different approximations of the data-generating process, ii) the models are very flexible with large degrees of freedom that are not shared between the models, and iii) the models underestimate the true variability in the data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Bayesian leave-one-out cross-validation for large data

Model inference, such as model comparison, model checking, and model selection, is an important part of model development. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO) is a general approach for assessing the generalizability of a model, but unfortunately, LOO does not scale well to large datasets. We propose a combination of using approximate inference techniques and probability-proportional-to-size-sampling (PPS) for fast LOO model evaluation for large datasets. We provide both theoretical and empirical results showing good properties for large data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access