MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108842605 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11585

On uncertainty estimation in functional linear mixed models

2020· article· en· W3108842605 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tapabrata Maiti, Abolfazl Safikhani, Ping‐Shou Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInferenceStatistical inferenceFunctional data analysisComputer scienceProcess (computing)Linear modelMean squared errorEstimationMixed modelRegression analysisMathematicsStatisticsMachine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Functional data analysis has proven useful in many scientific applications where a physical process is observed as a curve. In many applications, several curves are observed due to multiple subjects, providing replicates in the statistical sense. Recent literature develops several techniques for registering curves and estimating associated models in a regression framework. Standard regression models ignore heterogeneity among curves. Functional linear mixed models are one popular way to combine several curves and capture variability among curves via random effects. Although there is a good amount of work available for analyzing functional data using mixed models, limited attention has been paid to inference. After estimation, we concentrate on measuring uncertainty in terms of mean squared error when functional linear mixed models are used for prediction. Although measuring uncertainty is of paramount interest in any statistical prediction, there is no theoretically valid expression available for functional mixed effect models. The quality of theoretical approximations depends on the number of curves observed. In many real life applications, only a finite number of curves can be observed. In such situations, it is important to asses the error rate for any valid statistical statement. In this article, we derive a theoretically valid approximation of uncertainty measurements for prediction. We also provide some modifications for model estimation. The empirical performance of the proposed method is investigated by numerical examples and is compared with existing literature as appropriate. Our method is computationally simple and often outperforms other existing 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207