Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of outliers on signal separation performance of an independent component analysis (ICA) algorithm is an important factor when selecting an ICA algorithm. If an ICA estimator has the property of B-robustness, the influence of an extreme point is bounded, leading to good separation performance in the presence of outliers. Since this property is binary, it does not give the degree of influence an outlier has on the separation performance. To address this issue, a Mamdani-type fuzzy inference, based on the location of a potential outlier and on the skewness of the data set, has been developed. It creates an outlier sensitivity map for an ICA algorithm. The implication of this work is a criterion to switch from one ICA algorithm to another in real time, as determined by the algorithms sensitivity to the data set under consideration. This paper describes estimation of the outlier impact on the separation performance of the non-B-robust FastICA algorithm using a Mamdani-type fuzzy inference. In simulations with data sets contaminated by outliers, the FastICA sensitivity map resembles the separation performance measured by the Amari performance index.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".