Multi-variate factor separation of numerical simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Factor separation is widely used in the analysis of numerical simulations. It allows changes in properties of a system to be attributed to changes in multiple variables associated with that system. There are many possible factor separation methods; here we discuss three previously-proposed methods that have been applied in the field of climate modelling: the linear factor separation, the Stein and Alpert (1993) factor separation, and the Lunt et al (2012) factor separation. We show that, when more than two variables are being considered, none of these three methods possess all four properties of 'uniqueness', 'symmetry', 'completeness', and 'purity'. Here, we extend each of these methods so that they do possess these properties for any number of variables, resulting in three factor separation methods -- the 'linear-sum' , the 'shared-interaction', and the 'scaled-total'. We show that the linear-sum method and the shared-interaction method reduce to be identical in the case of four or fewer variables, and we conjecture that this holds for any number of variables. We present the results of the factor separations in the context of studies that used the previously-proposed methods. This reveals that only the linear-sum/shared-interaction factor separation method possesses a fifth property -- `boundedness', and as such we recommend the use of this method in applications for which these properties are desirable. The work described here is in review in Geoscientific Model Development - see https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2020-69 .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".