Non-linear complex principal component analysis of nearshore bathymetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Complex principal component analysis (CPCA) is a useful linear method for dimensionality reduction of data sets characterized by propagating patterns, where the CPCA modes are linear functions of the complex principal component (CPC), consisting of an amplitude and a phase. The use of non-linear methods, such as the neural-network based circular non-linear principal component analysis (NLPCA.cir) and the recently developed non-linear complex principal component analysis (NLCPCA), may provide a more accurate description of data in case the lower-dimensional structure is non-linear. NLPCA.cir extracts non-linear phase information without amplitude variability, while NLCPCA is capable of extracting both. NLCPCA can thus be viewed as a non-linear generalization of CPCA. In this article, NLCPCA is applied to bathymetry data from the sandy barred beaches at Egmond aan Zee (Netherlands), the Hasaki coast (Japan) and Duck (North Carolina, USA) to examine how effective this new method is in comparison to CPCA and NLPCA.cir in representing propagating phenomena. At Duck, the underlying low-dimensional data structure is found to have linear phase and amplitude variability only and, accordingly, CPCA performs as well as NLCPCA. At Egmond, the reduced data structure contains non-linear spatial patterns (asymmetric bar/trough shapes) without much temporal amplitude variability and, consequently, is about equally well modelled by NLCPCA and NLPCA.cir. Finally, at Hasaki, the data structure displays not only non-linear spatial variability but also considerably temporal amplitude variability, and NLCPCA outperforms both CPCA and NLPCA.cir. Because it is difficult to know the structure of data in advance as to which one of the three models should be used, the generalized NLCPCA model can be used in each situation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".