Period Analysis of Variable Stars by Robust Smoothing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The objective is to estimate the period and the light curve (or periodic function) of a variable star. Previously, several methods have been proposed to estimate the period of a variable star, but they are inaccurate especially when a data set contains outliers. We use a smoothing spline regression to estimate the light curve given a period and then find the period which minimizes the generalized cross-validation (GCV). The GCV method works well, matching an intensive visual examination of a few hundred stars, but the GCV score is still sensitive to outliers. Handling outliers in an automatic way is important when this method is applied in a ‘data mining’ context to a vary large star survey. Therefore, we suggest a robust method which minimizes a robust cross-validation criterion induced by a robust smoothing spline regression. Once the period has been determined, a nonparametric method is used to estimate the light curve. A real example and a simulation study suggest that the robust cross-validation and GCV methods are superior to existing methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it