2014
DOI: 10.5194/amt-7-781-2014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Methods for estimating uncertainty in factor analytic solutions

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 method… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
251
3
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 429 publications
(259 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
3
251
3
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Base model displacement (DISP), bootstrap (BS) and bootstrap displacement (BS-DISP) methods are the main tools of assessing quality. It has been demonstrated that these three methods complement each other (for more details, see Paatero et al, 2014). EFA PMF 5.0 provides aerosol data obtained from Baltimore and guides the applicant step by step to robustly use the source apportionment program of EPA PM 5.0.…”
Section: Appendix Amentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Base model displacement (DISP), bootstrap (BS) and bootstrap displacement (BS-DISP) methods are the main tools of assessing quality. It has been demonstrated that these three methods complement each other (for more details, see Paatero et al, 2014). EFA PMF 5.0 provides aerosol data obtained from Baltimore and guides the applicant step by step to robustly use the source apportionment program of EPA PM 5.0.…”
Section: Appendix Amentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first file includes concentrations, whilst the second file contains uncertainty for each species. Uncertainty for PMF application can be calculated using different approaches such as an ad hoc formula (Anttila et al, 1995), a fixed fraction of the concentration (Paatero et al, 2014) or a more complicated way, as proposed by Polissar et al (1998). No matter how it is calculated, if uncertainty is too high for one parameter, species will be categorized as bad by the PMF.…”
Section: Appendix Amentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Paatero et al (2014) compared the effectiveness in estimating uncertainties of factor elements using two different approaches: the displacement (DISP) and bootstrap analysis (BS). BS involves applying the model to input matrices consisting of a subset of the entire dataset.…”
Section: Sensitivity Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior to the PMF analyses, data and 5 uncertainty matrices were prepared in the same manner as previous studies (Polissar et al, 1998;Song et al, 2001). Data screening and the source apportionment were performed in accordance to the protocols and recommendations set out by Paatero et al, and Brown et al (Paatero et al, 2014;Brown et al, 2015). The effect on the receptor modeling from Variables elements with low signal-to-noise ratios were excluded from the examined by alternate inclusion and exclusion and only those that could be 10 explained in association with source emissions have been included in the results receptor modeling due to the effect that random analytical noise can have on the receptor modeling process (Paatero and Hopke, 2003).…”
Section: Receptor Modeling Using Pmfmentioning
confidence: 99%