Parametric 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 in functional data analysis to explore major sources of variation in a sample of random curves. These major sources of variation are represented by functional principal components (FPCs). Most existing FPCA approaches use a set of flexible basis functions such as B-spline basis to represent the FPCs, and control the smoothness of the FPCs by adding roughness penalties. However, the flexible representations pose difficulties for users to understand and interpret the FPCs. In this article, we consider a variety of applications of FPCA and find that, in many situations, the shapes of top FPCs are simple enough to be approximated using simple parametric functions. We propose a parametric approach to estimate the top FPCs to enhance their interpretability for users. Our parametric approach can also circumvent the smoothing parameter selecting process in conventional nonparametric FPCA methods. In addition, our simulation study shows that the proposed parametric FPCA is more robust when outlier curves exist. The parametric FPCA method is demonstrated by analyzing several datasets from a variety of applications.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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