Bayesian adaptive selection of basis functions for functional data representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the context of functional data analysis, we developed and applied a new Bayesian approach via the Gibbs sampler to select basis functions for a finite representation of functional data. The proposed methodology uses Bernoulli latent variables to assign zero to some of the basis function coefficients with a positive probability. This procedure allows for an adaptive basis selection since it can determine the number of bases and which ones should be selected to represent functional data. Moreover, the proposed procedure measures the uncertainty of the selection process and can be applied to multiple curves simultaneously. The methodology developed can deal with observed curves that may differ due to experimental error and random individual differences between subjects, which one can observe in a real dataset application involving daily numbers of COVID-19 cases in Brazil. Simulation studies show the main properties of the proposed method, such as its accuracy in estimating the coefficients and the strength of the procedure to find the true set of basis functions. Despite having been developed in the context of functional data analysis, we also compared the proposed model via simulation with the well-established LASSO and Bayesian LASSO, which are methods developed for non-functional data.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".