MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255299861 · doi:10.22215/etd/2014-10561

Optimal Component Selection in High Dimensions

2014· dissertation· en· W4255299861 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Cui

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Dimension (graph theory)High dimensionalConstruct (python library)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)Model selectionFeature selectionClustering high-dimensional dataMathematical optimizationData miningMathematicsArtificial intelligenceCluster analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is now the modern trend and reality in various fields of life and science that the data sets to be analyzed are high dimensional, and the number of observations is much smaller than their dimension.As the classical statistical methods are not designed to deal with big or high-dimensional data, the problem of developing new methods of high-dimensional statistical analysis is very important.In many statistical applications such as analysis of microarray data, signal recovery, and functional magnetic resonance imaging, the focus is often on identifying and estimating a relatively few significant components from a high-dimensional vector.In this thesis, we study the problem of component or variable selection in a normal mixture model based on a single high-dimensional observation.The goal is to examine the possibilities and limitations of optimal component selection in a two-point normal mixture model and, whenever possible, to construct optimal (nonimprovable) selection procedures.In addition to that, the problem of estimating an unknown parameter that determines the sparsity pattern of the data is addressed.The main theoretical findings of the thesis obtained in Chapter 1, and partly in Chapter 2, are supported by the simulation study; the results of the simulation study are presented in Chapter 3. The main results of the thesis, Theorems 2-5, are new.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207