How Many Separable Sources? Model Selection In Independent Components Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike mixtures consisting solely of non-Gaussian sources, mixtures including two or more Gaussian components cannot be separated using standard independent components analysis methods that are based on higher order statistics and independent observations. The mixed Independent Components Analysis/Principal Components Analysis (mixed ICA/PCA) model described here accommodates one or more Gaussian components in the independent components analysis model and uses principal components analysis to characterize contributions from this inseparable Gaussian subspace. Information theory can then be used to select from among potential model categories with differing numbers of Gaussian components. Based on simulation studies, the assumptions and approximations underlying the Akaike Information Criterion do not hold in this setting, even with a very large number of observations. Cross-validation is a suitable, though computationally intensive alternative for model selection. Application of the algorithm is illustrated using Fisher's iris data set and Howells' craniometric data set. Mixed ICA/PCA is of potential interest in any field of scientific investigation where the authenticity of blindly separated non-Gaussian sources might otherwise be questionable. Failure of the Akaike Information Criterion in model selection also has relevance in traditional independent components analysis where all sources are assumed non-Gaussian.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".