MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1898805148 · doi:10.1109/ssp.2016.7551732

Sparse multivariate factor regression

2016· preprint· en· W1898805148 on OpenAlexafffund
Milad Kharratzadeh, Mark Coates

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDimension (graph theory)Multivariate statisticsMatrix (chemical analysis)Mathematical optimizationConvex optimizationAlgorithmConvergence (economics)Optimization problemComputer scienceMathematicsSet (abstract data type)Dimensionality reductionRegressionLatent variableRegular polygonArtificial intelligenceStatisticsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a sparse multivariate regression algorithm which simultaneously performs dimensionality reduction and parameter estimation. We decompose the coefficient matrix into two sparse matrices: a long matrix mapping the predictors to a set of factors and a wide matrix estimating the responses from the factors. We impose an elastic net penalty on the former and an ℓ <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sub> penalty on the latter. Our algorithm simultaneously performs dimension reduction and coefficient estimation and automatically estimates the number of latent factors from the data. Our formulation results in a non-convex optimization problem, which despite its flexibility to impose effective low-dimensional structure, is difficult, or even impossible, to solve exactly in a reasonable time. We specify a greedy optimization algorithm based on alternating minimization to solve this non-convex problem and provide theoretical results on its convergence and optimality. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm via experiments on simulated and real data.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207