MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923144699

$\beta$-Divergence loss for the kernel density estimation with bias reduced

2019· preprint· en· W2923144699 on OpenAlexaff
Hamza Dhakera, El Hadji Demeb, Youssou Cissb

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKernel density estimationBandwidth (computing)Multivariate kernel density estimationDivergence (linguistics)Kernel (algebra)StatisticsNonparametric statisticsEconometricsDensity estimationComputer scienceSelection biasVariable kernel density estimationMathematicsKernel methodArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allthough nonparametric kernel density estimation with bias reduce is nowadays a standard technique in explorative data-analysis, there is still a big dispute on how to assess the quality of the estimate and which choice of bandwidth is optimal. This article examines the most important bandwidth selection methods for kernel density estimation with bias reduce, in particular, normal reference, least squares cross-validation, biased crossvalidation and $\beta$-Divergence loss. Methods are described and expressions are presented. We will compare these various bandwidth selector on simulated data. As an example of real data, we will use econometric data sets CO2 per capita in example 1 and the second

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.272
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.013 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207