MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129502039 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11765

PCA Rerandomization

2023· preprint· en· W3129502039 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMahalanobis distanceCovariatePrincipal component analysisCurse of dimensionalityComputer scienceLinear subspacePattern recognition (psychology)SimplicityData miningArtificial intelligenceMathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mahalanobis distance of covariate means between treatment and control groups is often adopted as a balance criterion when implementing a rerandomization strategy. However, this criterion may not work well for high‐dimensional cases because it balances all orthogonalized covariates equally. We propose using principal component analysis (PCA) to identify proper subspaces in which Mahalanobis distance should be calculated. Not only can PCA effectively reduce the dimensionality for high‐dimensional covariates, but it also provides computational simplicity by focusing on the top orthogonal components. The PCA rerandomization scheme has desirable theoretical properties for balancing covariates and thereby improving the estimation of average treatment effects. This conclusion is supported by numerical studies using both simulated and real examples.

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 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)0.019
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 score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.019
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.172 · 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