The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Methods for estimating uncertainty in factor analytic solutions
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Abstract. The EPA PMF (Environmental Protection Agency positive matrix factorization) version 5.0 and the underlying multilinear engine-executable ME-2 contain three methods for estimating uncertainty in factor analytic models: classical bootstrap (BS), displacement of factor elements (DISP), and bootstrap enhanced by displacement of factor elements (BS-DISP). The goal of these methods is to capture the uncertainty of PMF analyses due to random errors and rotational ambiguity. It is shown that the three methods complement each other: depending on characteristics of the data set, one method may provide better results than the other two. Results are presented using synthetic data sets, including interpretation of diagnostics, and recommendations are given for parameters to report when documenting uncertainty estimates from EPA PMF or ME-2 applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Abdollahi, H., Maeder, M., and Tauler, R.: Calculation and meaning of feasible band boundaries in multivariate curve resolution of a two-component system, Anal. Chem., 81, 2115–2122, 2009. · doi:10.1021/ac8022197
- Amato, F. and Hopke, P. K.: Source apportionment of the ambient PM2.5 across St. Louis using constrained positive matrix factorization, Atmos. Environ., 46, 329–337, 2012. · DOI
- Amato, F., Pandolfi, M., Escrig, A., Querol, X., Alastuey, A., Pey, J., Perez, N., and Hopke, P. K.: Quantifying road dust resuspension in urban environment by multilinear engine: a comparison with PMF2, Atmos. Environ., 43, 2770–2780, 2009. · DOI · Paper page
- Anderson, T. W.: An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 2nd Edn., Wiley, New York, 1984.
- Brown, S. G., Lee, T., Norris, G. A., Roberts, P. T., J. L. Collett, Jr., Paatero, P., and Worsnop, D. R.: Receptor modeling of near-roadway aerosol mass spectrometer data in Las Vegas, Nevada, with EPA PMF, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 309–325, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-309-2012, 2012. · DOI
- Brown, S. G., Paatero, P., Eberly, S., and Norris, G.: Methods for estimating uncertainty in PMF solutions: examples using ambient air and water quality data, in preparation, 2014. · DOI · Paper page
- Eberly, S. I. and Reff, A.: Evaluation of rotational control in multi-linear engine based receptor modeling approaches. Poster presented at the American Association for Aerosol Research Conference, Reno, NV, 24–28 September, 2007.
- Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. J.: An introduction to the bootstrap, Chapman & Hall, New York, 1993. · DOI · Paper page
- Engel-Cox, J. A. and Weber S. A.: Compilation and assessment of recent positive matrix factorization and UNMIX receptor model studies on fine particulate matter source apportionment for the eastern United States, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 57, 1307–1316, 2007. · doi:10.3155/1047-3289.57.11.1307
- Gemperline, P. J.: Computation of the range of feasible solutions in self-modeling curve resolution algorithms, Anal. Chem., 71, 5398–5404, 1999. · doi:10.1021/ac990648y
- Hedberg, E., Gidhagen, L., and Johansson, C.: Source contributions to PM10 and arsenic concentrations in Central Chile using positive matrix factorization, Atmos. Environ., }{39, 549–561, 2005. · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.11.001
- Henry, R. C.: Current factor analysis models are ill-posed, Atmos. Environ., 21, 1815–1820, 1987. · DOI
- Henry, R. C.: History and fundamentals of multivariate air quality receptor models, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 37, 525–530, 1997. · doi:10.1016/s0169-7439(96)00048-2
- Jaumot, J. and Tauler, R.: MCR-BANDS: a user friendly MATLAB program for the evaluation of rotation ambiguities in Multivariate Curve Resolution. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 103, 96–107, 2010. · doi:10.1016/j.chemolab.2010.05.020
- Ke, L., Liu, W., Want, Y., Russell, A. G., Edgerton, E. S., and Zheng, M.: Comparison of PM2.5 source apportionment using positive matrix factorization and molecular marker-based chemical mass balance, Sci. Total Environ., 394, 290–302, 2008. · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.01.030
- Kim, E. and Hopke, P. K.: Source identifications of airborne fine particles using positive matrix factorization and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency positive matrix factorization, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., }{57, 811–819, 2007. · DOI
- Paatero, P.: Least squares formulation of robust non-negative factor analysis, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 37, 23–35, 1997. · DOI · Paper page
- Paatero, P. and Hopke, P. K.: Rotational Tools for Factor Analytic Models, J. Chemometrics, 23, 91–100, 2009. · DOI
- Paatero, P. and Tapper, U.: Positive matrix factorization: a non-negative factor model with optimal utilization of error estimates of data values, Environmetrics, 5, 111–126, 1994. · DOI · Paper page
- Paatero, P., Hopke, P. K., Song, X. H., and Ramadan, Z.: Understanding and controlling rotations in factor analytic models, Chemometrics an Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 60, 253–264, 2002. · DOI · Paper page
- Poirot, R. L., Wishinski, P. R., Hopke, P. K., and Polissar, A. V.: Comparative application of multiple receptor methods to identify aerosol sources in northern Vermont, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35, 4622–4636, 2001. · doi:10.1021/es010588p
- Reff, A., Eberly, S. I., and Bhave, P. V.: Receptor modeling of ambient particulate matter data using positive matrix factorization: review of existing methods, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 57, 146–154, 2007. · DOI · Paper page
- Tauler, R.: Calculation of maximum and minimum band boundaries of feasible solutions for species profiles obtained by multivariate curve resolution, J. Chemometrics, 15, 627–646, 2001. · doi:10.1002/cem.654
- Ulbrich, I. M., Canagaratna, M. R., Zhang, Q., Worsnop, D. R., and Jimenez, J. L.: Interpretation of organic components from Positive Matrix Factorization of aerosol mass spectrometric data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 2891–2918, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-2891-2009, 2009. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Almeida, S. M., Manousakas, M., Diapouli, E., Kertesz, Z., Samek, L., Hristova, E., Šega, K., Alvarez, R. P., Belis, C. A., & Eleftheriadis, K. (2020) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115199 · Cited by 137
Masiol, M., Squizzato, S., Formenton, G., Khan, M. B., Hopke, P. K., Nenes, A., Pandis, S. N., Tositti, L., Benetello, F., Visin, F., et al. (2020) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135287 · Cited by 77
Kotchenruther, R. A. (2016) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.07.048 · Cited by 69
The Red Sea Deep Water is a potent source of atmospheric ethane and propane
Bourtsoukidis, E., Pozzer, A., Sattler, T., Matthaios, V. N., Ernle, L., Edtbauer, A., Fischer, H., Könemann, T., Osipov, S., Paris, J.-D., et al. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-14375-0 · Cited by 59
Ye, L., & Wang, Y. (2020) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos11111203 · Cited by 25
Cesari, D., Merico, E., Grasso, F. M., Dinoi, A., Conte, M., Genga, A., Siciliano, M., Petralia, E., Stracquadanio, M., & Contini, D. (2021) · Atmospheric Pollution Research · doi:10.1016/j.apr.2021.101135 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Paatero, P., Eberly, S., Brown, S. G., & Norris, G. A.
- Venue
- Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2014-03-27
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 781-797
- ISSN
- 1867-1381 (ISSN-L)
- 1867-8548
- OpenAlex
- W2026802068
- Cited by
- 571
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
