Exploring dimension learning via a penalized probabilistic principal component analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishing a low-dimensional representation of the data leads to efficient data learning strategies. In many cases, the reduced dimension needs to be explicitly stated and estimated from the data. We explore the estimation of dimension in finite samples as a constrained optimization problem, where the estimated dimension is a maximizer of a penalized profile likelihood criterion within the framework of a probabilistic principal components analysis. Unlike other penalized maximization problems that require an ‘optimal’ penalty tuning parameter, we propose a data-averaging procedure whereby the estimated dimension emerges as the most favourable choice over a range of plausible penalty parameters. The proposed heuristic is compared to a large number of alternative criteria in simulations and an application to gene expression data. Extensive simulation studies reveal that none of the methods uniformly dominate the other and highlight the importance of subject-specific knowledge in choosing statistical methods for dimension learning. Our application results also suggest that gene expression data have a higher intrinsic dimension than previously thought. Overall, our proposed heuristic strikes a good balance and is the method of choice when model assumptions deviated moderately.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it