MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171325567 · doi:10.32614/rj-2021-033

Benchmarking R packages for Calculation of Persistent Homology

2021· article· en· W3171325567 on OpenAlexaff
V. Somasundaram Eashwar, E. Brown Shael, Adam Litzler, Gary S. Jacob

Bibliographic record

VenueThe R Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopological and Geometric Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBenchmarkingR packageHomology (biology)Computer sciencePersistent homologySoftwareSoftware packageProgramming languageSoftware engineeringComputational biologyTheoretical computer scienceComputational scienceBiologyAlgorithmGeneticsAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several persistent homology software libraries have been implemented in R. Specifically, the Dionysus, GUDHI, and Ripser libraries have been wrapped by the TDA and TDAstats CRAN packages. These software represent powerful analysis tools that are computationally expensive and, to our knowledge, have not been formally benchmarked. Here, we analyze runtime and memory growth for the 2 R packages and the 3 underlying libraries. We find that datasets with less than 3 dimensions can be evaluated with persistent homology fastest by the GUDHI library in the TDA package. For higher-dimensional datasets, the Ripser library in the TDAstats package is the fastest. Ripser and TDAstats are also the most memory-efficient tools to calculate persistent homology.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.028

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe R JournalSame topicTopological and Geometric Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207