MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208584122 · doi:10.1002/sam.11555

A family of mixture models for biclustering

2021· article· en· W3208584122 on OpenAlexaff
Wangshu Tu, Sanjeena Subedi

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Analysis and Data Mining The ASA Data Science Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiclusteringCluster analysisDiagonalCovariance matrixLatent variableCovarianceBlock matrixMathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)Pattern recognition (psychology)Data miningArtificial intelligenceStatisticsCorrelation clusteringCURE data clustering algorithmEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Biclustering is used for simultaneous clustering of the observations and variables when there is no group structure known a priori. It is being increasingly used in bioinformatics, text analytics, and so on. Previously, biclustering has been introduced in a model‐based clustering framework by utilizing a structure similar to a mixture of factor analyzers. In such models, observed variables are modeled using a latent variable that is assumed to be from . Clustering of variables are introduced by imposing constraints on the entries of the factor loading matrix to be 0 and 1 that results in block diagonal covariance matrices. However, this approach is overly restrictive as off‐diagonal elements in the blocks of the covariance matrices can only be 1 which can lead to unsatisfactory model fit on complex data. Here, the latent variable is assumed to be from a where is a diagonal matrix. This ensures that the off‐diagonal terms in the block matrices within the covariance matrices are non‐zero and not restricted to be 1. This leads to a superior model fit on complex data. A family of models is developed by imposing constraints on the components of the covariance matrix. For parameter estimation, an alternating expectation conditional maximization (AECM) algorithm is used. Finally, the proposed method is illustrated using simulated and real datasets.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Analysis and Data Mining The ASA Data Science JournalSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207