Interpretable Functional Principal Component Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional principal component analysis (FPCA) is a popular approach to explore major sources of variation in a sample of random curves. These major sources of variation are represented by functional principal components (FPCs). The intervals where the values of FPCs are significant are interpreted as where sample curves have major variations. However, these intervals are often hard for naïve users to identify, because of the vague definition of "significant values". In this article, we develop a novel penalty-based method to derive FPCs that are only nonzero precisely in the intervals where the values of FPCs are significant, whence the derived FPCs possess better interpretability than the FPCs derived from existing methods. To compute the proposed FPCs, we devise an efficient algorithm based on projection deflation techniques. We show that the proposed interpretable FPCs are strongly consistent and asymptotically normal under mild conditions. Simulation studies confirm that with a competitive performance in explaining variations of sample curves, the proposed FPCs are more interpretable than the traditional counterparts. This advantage is demonstrated by analyzing two real datasets, namely, electroencephalography data and Canadian weather data.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".