MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982733046 · doi:10.1198/016214506000000096

Principal Components Analysis Based on Multivariate MM Estimators With Fast and Robust Bootstrap

2006· article· en· W1982733046 on OpenAlexaff
Matías Salibián‐Barrera, Stefan Van Aelst, Gert Willems

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorPrincipal component analysisMathematicsAsymptotic distributionRobustness (evolution)Multivariate statisticsConsistency (knowledge bases)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsInferenceM-estimatorRobust statisticsStatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider robust principal components analysis (PCA) based on multivariate MM estimators. We first study the robustness and efficiency of these estimators, particularly in terms of eigenvalues and eigenvectors. We then focus on inference procedures based on a fast and robust bootstrap for MM estimators. This method is an alternative to the approach based on the asymptotic distribution of the estimators and can also be used to assess the stability of the principal components. A formal consistency proof for the bootstrap method is given, and its finite-sample performance is investigated through simulations. We illustrate the use of the robust PCA and the bootstrap inference on a real dataset.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations144
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207