MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604113891

Kernel intensity estimation, bootstrapping and bandwidth selection for inhomogeneous point processes depending on spatial covariates

2017· preprint· en· W2604113891 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. I. Borrajo, Wenceslao González–Manteiga, María Dolores Martínez‐Miranda

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateEstimatorBootstrapping (finance)Computer scienceKernel (algebra)Bandwidth (computing)StatisticsEconometricsKernel density estimationPoint processData miningAlgorithmMathematicsMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the point process context, kernel intensity estimation has been mainly restricted to exploratory analysis due to its lack of consistency. However the use of covariates has allow to design consistent alternatives under some restrictive assumptions. In this paper we focus our attention on de\-fi\-ning an appropriate framework to derive a consistent kernel intensity estimator using covariates, as well as a consistent smooth bootstrap procedure. For spatial point processes with covariates there is no specific bandwidth selector, hence, we define two new data-driven procedures specifically designed for this scenario: a rule-of-thumb and a plug-in bandwidth based on the bootstrap method previously introduced. A simulation study is accomplished to understand the behaviour of these procedures in finite samples. Finally, we apply the techniques to a real set of data made up of wildfires in Canada during June 2015, using meteorological information as covariates.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.119 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207