Using the L<sub>1</sub>norm to select basis set vectors for multivariate calibration and calibration updating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With projection based calibration approaches, such as partial least squares (PLS) and principal component regression (PCR), the calibration space is spanned by respective basis vectors (latent vectors). Up to rank k basis vectors are formed wherek ≤ min(m,n) withmandndenoting the number of calibration samples and measured variables. The user needs to decide how many and which respective basis vectors (tuning parameters). To avoid the second issue, basis vectors are selected top‐down starting with the first and sequentially adding until model criteria are satisfied. Ridge regression (RR) avoids the issues by using the full set of basis vectors. Another approach is to select a subset from the total available. The presented work develops a process based on the L1vector norm to select basis vectors. Specifically, the L1norm is used to select singular value decomposition (SVD) basis set vectors for PCR (LPCR). Because PCR, PLS, RR, and others can be expressed as linear combination of the SVD basis vectors, the focus is on selection and comparison using the SVD basis set. Results based on respective tuning parameter selections and weights applied to the SVD basis vectors for LPCR, top‐down PCR, correlation PCR (CPCR), PLS, and RR are compared for calibration and calibration updating using spectroscopic data sets. The methods are found to predict equivalently. In particular, the L1norm produces similar results to those obtained by the well‐studied CPCR process. Thus, the new method provides a different theoretical framework than CPCR for selecting basis vectors. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".