MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078314228 · doi:10.1366/0003702041389382

Maximum Likelihood Principal Components Regression on Wavelet-Compressed Data

2004· article· en· W2078314228 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc N. Léger, Peter D. Wentzell

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Spectroscopy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWaveletPrincipal component analysisCovariance matrixWavelet transformCovarianceDiscrete wavelet transformAlgorithmMathematicsPrincipal component regressionComputer scienceData compressionMatrix (chemical analysis)StatisticsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maximum likelihood principal component regression (MLPCR) is an errors-in-variables method used to accommodate measurement error information when building multivariate calibration models. A hindrance of MLPCR has been the substantial demand on computational resources sometimes made by the algorithm, especially for certain types of error structures. Operations on these large matrices are memory intensive and time consuming, especially when techniques such as cross-validation are used. This work describes the use of wavelet transforms (WT) as a data compression method for MLPCR. It is shown that the error covariance matrix in the wavelet and spectral domains are related through a two-dimensional WT. This allows the user to account for any effects of the wavelet transform on spectral and error structures. The wavelet transform can be applied to MLPCR when using either the full error covariance matrix or the smaller pooled error covariance matrix. Simulated and experimental near-infrared data sets are used to demonstrate the benefits of using wavelets with the MLPCR algorithm. In all cases, significant compression can be obtained while maintaining favorable predictive ability. Considerable time savings were also attained, with improvements ranging from a factor of 2 to a factor of 720. Using the WT-compressed data in MLPCR gave a reduction in prediction errors compared to using the raw data in MLPCR. An analogous reduction in prediction errors was not always seen when using PCR.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SpectroscopySame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207