MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574204554 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11181

On central matrix based methods in dimension reduction

2013· article· en· W1574204554 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Wei Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSliced inverse regressionDimension (graph theory)InverseVariance (accounting)Sufficient dimension reductionMatrix (chemical analysis)Computer scienceDimensionality reductionVariance reductionMathematicsRegressionReduction (mathematics)StatisticsConstant (computer programming)EconometricsMathematical optimizationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMonte Carlo method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dimension reduction for regression analysis has been one of the most popular topics in the past two decades. It sees much progress with the introduction of the inverse regression, centered around the two key methods, sliced inverse regression (SIR) and sliced average variance estimation (SAVE). It is well known that SIR works poorly when the inverse conditional expectation is close to being nonrandom. SAVE and its many generalizations, which do not suffer from this drawback, lag behind SIR in many other circumstances. Usually a certain weighted hybrid of SIR and SAVE is necessary to improve overall performance. However, it is difficult to find the optimal mixture weights in a hybrid, and most such hybrid methods, as well as SAVE, require the restrictive constant (conditional) variance condition. We propose a much weaker condition and a new accompanying algorithm. This enables us to create several new central matrices that perform very favourably to existing central matrix based methods without referring to hybrids. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 41: 421–438; 2013 © 2013 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207