MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415932740 · doi:10.1080/01621459.2025.2582874

Functional Partial Least-Squares: Adaptive Estimation and Inference

2025· article· en· W4415932740 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrii Babii, Marine Carrasco, Idriss Tsafack

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsInferenceEstimationPattern recognition (psychology)Estimation theoryStatistical inference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the linear regression model with a scalar response and a functional predictor, a canonical example of an ill-posed inverse problem. We show that the functional partial least-squares (PLS) estimator achieves convergence rates that are nearly minimax-optimal over a class of ellipsoids and propose an adaptive early-stopping procedure for selecting the number of PLS components. In addition, we develop a new test that detects parametric local alternatives. The test can be inverted to construct confidence sets for the functional slope parameter. Simulation results show that the estimator performs favorably relative to several existing methods, and that the proposed test has good power. We apply our methodology to evaluate the nonlinear effects of temperature on corn and soybean yields. We provide a Python software library, fpls, implementing our method. Supplementary materials for this article are available online, including a standardized description of the materials available for reproducing the work.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207