Interpretable Functional Principal Component Analysis
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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