MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155884633 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1349668

A study of outliers for robust independent component analysis

2004· article· en· W2155884633 on OpenAlexaff
N. Gadhok, Witold Kinsner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependent component analysisFastICAOutlierRobustness (evolution)EstimatorCluster analysisComputer scienceRobust statisticsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceDivergence (linguistics)MathematicsAlgorithmBlind signal separationStatisticsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of outliers on the signal separation performance of an independent component analysis (ICA) algorithm is an important characteristic in assessing the algorithm's utility in real-world applications. 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. In recent work, major ICA estimators, such as FastICA, have been proven not to be B-robust. We seek to enhance the non-B-robust FastICA estimator by the introduction of K-means clustering for outlier mitigation. We compare our algorithm with the B-robust /spl beta/-divergence algorithm by conducting a simulation to reproduce published results. The paper demonstrates the utility of the K-means clustering algorithm to mitigate a class of outliers such that our ICA separation performance is at least equal to that of published results for the B-robust /spl beta/-divergence estimator.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207