MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950781762 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.00632

Partial Functional Linear Quantile Regression for Neuroimaging Data Analysis

2015· preprint· en· W2950781762 on OpenAlexafffund
Dengdeng Yu, Linglong Kong, Ivan Mizera

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsQuantile regressionQuantileCovarianceHomoscedasticityPartial least squares regressionMathematicsPartial correlationLinear regressionCovariateStatisticsEconometricsHeteroscedasticityCorrelation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a prediction procedure for the functional linear quantile regression model by using partial quantile covariance techniques and develop a simple partial quantile regression (SIMPQR) algorithm to efficiently extract partial quantile regression (PQR) basis for estimating functional coefficients. We further extend our partial quantile covariance techniques to functional composite quantile regression (CQR) defining partial composite quantile covariance. There are three major contributions. (1) We define partial quantile covariance between two scalar variables through linear quantile regression. We compute PQR basis by sequentially maximizing the partial quantile covariance between the response and projections of functional covariates. (2) In order to efficiently extract PQR basis, we develop a SIMPQR algorithm analogous to simple partial least squares (SIMPLS). (3) Under the homoscedasticity assumption, we extend our techniques to partial composite quantile covariance and use it to find the partial composite quantile regression (PCQR) basis. The SIMPQR algorithm is then modified to obtain the SIMPCQR algorithm. Two simulation studies show the superiority of our proposed methods. Two real data from ADHD-200 sample and ADNI are analyzed using our proposed methods.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.550
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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