Functional Data Analysis of Amplitude and Phase Variation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The abundance of functional observations in scientific endeavors has led to a significant development in tools for functional data analysis (FDA). This kind of data comes with several challenges: infinite-dimensionality of function spaces, observation noise, and so on. However, there is another interesting phenomena that creates problems in FDA. The functional data often comes with lateral displacements/deformations in curves, a phenomenon which is different from the height or amplitude variability and is termed phase variation. The presence of phase variability artificially often inflates data variance, blurs underlying data structures, and distorts principal components. While the separation and/or removal of phase from amplitude data is desirable, this is a difficult problem. In particular, a commonly used alignment procedure, based on minimizing the $\mathbb{L}^{2}$ norm between functions, does not provide satisfactory results. In this paper we motivate the importance of dealing with the phase variability and summarize several current ideas for separating phase and amplitude components. These approaches differ in the following: (1) the definition and mathematical representation of phase variability, (2) the objective functions that are used in functional data alignment, and (3) the algorithmic tools for solving estimation/optimization problems. We use simple examples to illustrate various approaches and to provide useful contrast between them.
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it