MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047527848 · doi:10.1002/cem.926

Mathematical improvements to maximum likelihood parallel factor analysis: theory and simulations

2005· article· en· W2047527848 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemometrics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicTensor decomposition and applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmComputationRepresentation (politics)Basis (linear algebra)CovarianceHeteroscedasticityFunction (biology)Computer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Covariance matrixMathematicsNoise (video)Mathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A number of simplified algorithms for carrying out m aximum l ikelihood para llel fac tor analysis (MLPARAFAC) for three‐way data affected by different error structures are described. The MLPARAFAC method was introduced to establish the theoretical basis to treat heteroscedastic and/or correlated noise affecting trilinear data. Unfortunately, the large size of the error covariance matrix employed in the general formulation of this algorithm prevents its application to solve standard three‐way problems. The algorithms developed here are based on the principle of alternating least squares, but differ from the generalized MLPARAFAC algorithm in that they do not use equivalent alternatives of the objective function to estimate the loadings for the different modes. Instead, these simplified algorithms tackle the loss of symmetry of the PARAFAC model by using only one representation of the objective function to estimate the loadings of all of the modes. In addition, a compression step is introduced to allow the use of the generalized algorithm. Simulation studies carried out under a variety of measurement error conditions were used for statistical validation of the maximum likelihood properties of the algorithms and to assess the quality of the results and computation time. The simplified MLPARAFAC methods are also shown to produce more accurate results than PARAFAC under a variety of conditions. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.308 · 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