31
Constructing Probabilistic Lightcurve Templates for Bayesian Observation Scheduling Methods Ana-Maria Staicu Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University [email protected] WGII: David Jones, Sujit Ghosh, AMS, Ashish Mahabal, Jogesh Babu, James Long May 9, 2017 1 / 28

Constructing Probabilistic Lightcurve Templates for ...€¦ · WGII subgroup 3 overview: aims and scope. Overall aim: schedule observations to maximize correct lightcurve classi

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    5

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • Constructing Probabilistic Lightcurve Templates for BayesianObservation Scheduling Methods

    Ana-Maria Staicu

    Department of Statistics, North Carolina State [email protected]

    WGII: David Jones, Sujit Ghosh, AMS, Ashish Mahabal, Jogesh Babu, JamesLong

    May 9, 2017

    1 / 28

  • I Periodic variable stars are very interesting phenomena in Universe andhave attracted high interest

    I Learning their type can inform knowledge about the Universe

    I The stars are observed only at few times; thus it is important to schedulea future observation time that allows to correctly recover the star’s class

    2 / 28

  • Eclipsing binaries

    https://www.eso.org

    3 / 28

    https://www.eso.org

  • Example eclipsing binary training data

    4 / 28

  • WGII subgroup 3 overview: aims and scope

    Overall aim: schedule observations tomaximize correct lightcurve classification

    Method:

    I Develop probabilistic templates asclass specific priors

    I Choose observations that separateposterior fits under different classes

    Initial breakdown into manageableinvestigations:

    I Using templates to find periods

    I Given period, using templates to(further) separate classes, andschedule new observations

    CRTS data, Drake et al. 2014

    5 / 28

  • Model framework

    Notation: Yl(t) is the lightcurve for object l and t ∈ [0, 1]. Consider a finitebasis function {B1(t), . . . ,BJ(t)} in [0, 1].

    I Bayesian hierarchical model for class-specific lightcurves

    Yl(til) =J∑

    j=1

    αljBj(til) + σl�il

    αl = (αl1, . . . , αlJ)T ∼ N(β,Σ)

    β ∼ N(0, IJ); Σ ∼ Inv −Wishart(J, 0.25IJ)�il ∼ N(0, 1); σl ∼ Inv − Gamma(3, 1)

    I For new Y (·) use posterior distribution π(α|Y (·) ∈ class c) to classify itI For class c, predict Ŷ c(·) := Ŷ c(·)|{Y (·) ∈ class c} based onπ(α|Y (·) ∈ class c) and the basis function {Bj(t)}j

    I Let c1, c2 be the most probable classes for Y (·). Criterion for optimalfuture scheduling time that separates classes c1, c2 is

    Tc1,c2 := argmaxt∈[0,1]|Ŷc1 (t)− Ŷ c2 (t)|

    Optimal time := mode of the distribution of Tc1,c2 .

    6 / 28

  • Model framework

    Notation: Yl(t) is the lightcurve for object l and t ∈ [0, 1]. Consider a finitebasis function {B1(t), . . . ,BJ(t)} in [0, 1].

    I Bayesian hierarchical model for class-specific lightcurves

    Yl(til) =J∑

    j=1

    αljBj(til) + σl�il

    αl = (αl1, . . . , αlJ)T ∼ N(β,Σ)

    β ∼ N(0, IJ); Σ ∼ Inv −Wishart(J, 0.25IJ)�il ∼ N(0, 1); σl ∼ Inv − Gamma(3, 1)

    I For new Y (·) use posterior distribution π(α|Y (·) ∈ class c) to classify it

    I For class c, predict Ŷ c(·) := Ŷ c(·)|{Y (·) ∈ class c} based onπ(α|Y (·) ∈ class c) and the basis function {Bj(t)}j

    I Let c1, c2 be the most probable classes for Y (·). Criterion for optimalfuture scheduling time that separates classes c1, c2 is

    Tc1,c2 := argmaxt∈[0,1]|Ŷc1 (t)− Ŷ c2 (t)|

    Optimal time := mode of the distribution of Tc1,c2 .

    6 / 28

  • Model framework

    Notation: Yl(t) is the lightcurve for object l and t ∈ [0, 1]. Consider a finitebasis function {B1(t), . . . ,BJ(t)} in [0, 1].

    I Bayesian hierarchical model for class-specific lightcurves

    Yl(til) =J∑

    j=1

    αljBj(til) + σl�il

    αl = (αl1, . . . , αlJ)T ∼ N(β,Σ)

    β ∼ N(0, IJ); Σ ∼ Inv −Wishart(J, 0.25IJ)�il ∼ N(0, 1); σl ∼ Inv − Gamma(3, 1)

    I For new Y (·) use posterior distribution π(α|Y (·) ∈ class c) to classify itI For class c, predict Ŷ c(·) := Ŷ c(·)|{Y (·) ∈ class c} based onπ(α|Y (·) ∈ class c) and the basis function {Bj(t)}j

    I Let c1, c2 be the most probable classes for Y (·). Criterion for optimalfuture scheduling time that separates classes c1, c2 is

    Tc1,c2 := argmaxt∈[0,1]|Ŷc1 (t)− Ŷ c2 (t)|

    Optimal time := mode of the distribution of Tc1,c2 .

    6 / 28

  • Model framework

    Notation: Yl(t) is the lightcurve for object l and t ∈ [0, 1]. Consider a finitebasis function {B1(t), . . . ,BJ(t)} in [0, 1].

    I Bayesian hierarchical model for class-specific lightcurves

    Yl(til) =J∑

    j=1

    αljBj(til) + σl�il

    αl = (αl1, . . . , αlJ)T ∼ N(β,Σ)

    β ∼ N(0, IJ); Σ ∼ Inv −Wishart(J, 0.25IJ)�il ∼ N(0, 1); σl ∼ Inv − Gamma(3, 1)

    I For new Y (·) use posterior distribution π(α|Y (·) ∈ class c) to classify itI For class c, predict Ŷ c(·) := Ŷ c(·)|{Y (·) ∈ class c} based onπ(α|Y (·) ∈ class c) and the basis function {Bj(t)}j

    I Let c1, c2 be the most probable classes for Y (·). Criterion for optimalfuture scheduling time that separates classes c1, c2 is

    Tc1,c2 := argmaxt∈[0,1]|Ŷc1 (t)− Ŷ c2 (t)|

    Optimal time := mode of the distribution of Tc1,c2 .

    6 / 28

  • User specified basis fns (cubic B-spline, J = 13)

    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

    0.5

    0.0

    −0.

    5

    100 draws of prior mean

    Phase

    Nor

    mal

    ized

    mag

    nitu

    de

    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

    0.5

    0.0

    −0.

    5100 draws from prior for coefficients

    Phase

    Nor

    mal

    ized

    mag

    nitu

    de

    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

    0.5

    0.0

    −0.

    5

    Phase

    Nor

    mal

    ized

    mag

    nitu

    de ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

    0.5

    0.0

    −0.

    5

    Phase

    Nor

    mal

    ized

    mag

    nitu

    de

    ●●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    EA class (B-splines)

    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

    0.5

    0.0

    −0.

    5

    100 draws of prior mean

    Phase

    Nor

    mal

    ized

    mag

    nitu

    de

    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

    0.5

    0.0

    −0.

    5

    100 draws from prior for coefficients

    Phase

    Nor

    mal

    ized

    mag

    nitu

    de

    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

    0.5

    0.0

    −0.

    5

    Phase

    Nor

    mal

    ized

    mag

    nitu

    de

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

    0.5

    0.0

    −0.

    5

    Phase

    Nor

    mal

    ized

    mag

    nitu

    de

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    EW class (B-splines)

    I Left plot: range of depths of smaller eclipse is a concern since thetemplate assumes all lightcurves are essentially of the same type

    7 / 28

  • Suppose we have templates / class priors e.g.

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    1.0

    0.5

    0.0

    −0.

    5−

    1.0

    Template medians

    Phase

    Nor

    mal

    ized

    mag

    nitu

    de

    EWEARRabRRcRRdRS_CVnLPV

    8 / 28

  • New lightcurve with 50 observations (down-sampled)

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●●●●

    ●●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    16.6

    16.5

    16.4

    16.3

    16.2

    16.1

    16.0

    Original RRab class lightcurve

    Phase

    Mag

    nitu

    de

    9 / 28

  • Posterior draws under each class (true class is RRab)

    I Red: mean of prior for true class

    I Grey: draws from prior of true class

    I Blue: draws from posterior of class indicated in panel title

    10 / 28

  • Calculate initial posterior class probabilities (test data)

    EW lightcurves:

    ●●

    ●●●●●●

    ●●●●●●●●●●●

    ●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●

    ●●●●●●●●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●●●

    ●●

    ●●●●

    ●●●●

    ●●●●

    EW EA RRab RRc RRd RS_CVn LPV

    0.0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    0.8

    1.0

    Class

    Pos

    terio

    r pr

    ob

    RRc lightcurves:

    ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

    ●●●●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    EW EA RRab RRc RRd RS_CVn LPV0.

    00.

    20.

    40.

    60.

    81.

    0

    Class

    Pos

    terio

    r pr

    ob

    11 / 28

  • Confusion matrix classification (test data)

    I We can find a confusion matrix based on the assignments with the highestposterior probabilities

    ClassifiedTrue class EW EA RRab RRc RRd RS CVn LPV

    EW 81 8 0 0 0 11 0EA 4 88 0 0 0 8 0

    RRab 1 0 82 0 3 13 1RRc 0 0 3 34 40 18 5RRd 0 0 3 6 44 31 16

    RS CVn 1 3 0 0 5 72 19LPV 0 1 0 1 23 50 25

    12 / 28

  • Maximum separation distribution (RRc)

    I Left plot: posterior draws of fit for single lightcurveI Green lines: times of maximum separation between posterior draws of fits

    under RRc (red) and EA (blue)I Mode of this distribution of maximum separation times – to schedule a new

    observation

    I Right plot: RRc class-wide distribution of optimal observation time fordistinguishing from EA class based on many lightcurves

    I Indicates possible general strategy for distinguishing these two classes

    13 / 28

  • Scheduling criterion

    The green lines on the previous slides are the posterior draws k = 1, . . . , 100 ofthe maximum separation of means

    T (k)c1,c2 = argmaxt∈[0,1]

    ∣∣∣Ŷ c1,(k)(t)− Ŷ c2,(k)(t)∣∣∣Scheduling methods: identify the two most probable classes. Consider thefollowing competitive approaches to select t̂c1,c2

    1. the mode of the distribution Tc1,c2

    2. random value from the variable Tc1,c2

    3. using the results from a class-class comparison from a previous study, ifavailable (e.g. using the results displayed in the previous fig, right plot)

    4. random value from Uniform(0, 1) - näıve approach

    14 / 28

  • New observations (RRab)

    I Chosen to separate two most probable classes

    I New observations simulated using approximation to full lightcurve

    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

    1.0

    0.5

    0.0

    −0.

    5−

    1.0

    Phase

    Nor

    mal

    ized

    mag

    nitu

    de

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●●

    ● ●

    RRd (0.33)RRab (0.48)

    ● Post. modePost drawClass−wide optRandom

    Circle: mode of green lines(from previous slide)

    Triangle: random selection ofgreen line

    Square: mode of distributionon right of previous slide

    Star: random uniform(0,1)

    15 / 28

  • Limitations of current approach

    I Optimal selection performance depends on an accurate construction ofprobabilitstic templates especially for distinguishing classes that are similar

    I User specified basis - requires large number of functions J to capture thecomplexity of the lightcurves. How to select J ?

    I Large J involves high computational burden

    I Alternative: data-driven bases functions to construct the probabilistictemplates

    16 / 28

  • Probabilistic templates using data-driven basis (FPCA)

    I Use ideas from Functional Principal Component Analysis (FPCA)

    I Model for class-specified lightcurves (also known as Karhunen-Loève)

    Yl(til) = µ(til) +K∑

    k=1

    ξlkφk(til) + �il

    {φk(t)}k − orthogonal basisξlk − basis coefficients uncorrelated over kξlk ∼ (0, λk);λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ . . . ≥ 0�il ∼ (0, σ2)

    µ(t) - smooth function - is the class-specific mean curve

    {φk(t), k ≥ 1} eigenbasis of the smooth covarianceΣ(t, t′) := cov{Yl(t),Yl(t′)}

    Σ(t, t′) =∑k≥1

    λkφk(t)φk(t′)

    ∫φ2k(t)dt = 1 and

    ∫φk(t)φk′(t)dt = 0 for k 6= k ′

    17 / 28

  • FPCA basis

    Consider {Yl(til) : i}l the set of lightcurves in the same classI Estimate the mean function by univariate smoothing, µ̂(t)

    I Estimate the covariance function by bivariate smoothing, Σ̂(t, t′)

    Eigenanalysis of Σ̂(t, t′) yields {λ̂k , φ̂k(t)}k{φ̂k(t)}k - is orthogonal basis and λ̂1 ≥ λ̂2 ≥ . . . ≥ 0

    I Ŷl(t) = µ̂(t) +∑K

    k=1 φ̂k(t)ξ̂lk

    where ξ̂lk =∫{Yl(t)− µ̂(t)}φ̂k(t)dt (numerical approx)

    18 / 28

  • Illustration using EA class (1000 curves, K=7 for PVE=90%)

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    0.4

    0.2

    0.0

    −0.

    2−

    0.4

    Phase

    Ligh

    tcur

    ves

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    −3

    −2

    −1

    01

    2

    1−st eigenfunction ( 47.53 %)

    Phase

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    −3

    −2

    −1

    01

    2

    2−nd eigenfunction ( 23.83 %)

    Phase

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    −3

    −2

    −1

    01

    2

    3−rd eigenfunction ( 7.98 %)

    Phase

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    0 1 2 3 4

    −0.

    20−

    0.10

    0.00

    0.10

    Basis coeff, k= 1

    depth ratio

    ●●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●● ●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    0 1 2 3 4

    −0.

    10.

    00.

    10.

    20.

    3

    Basis coeff, k= 2

    depth ratio

    ● ●

    ● ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ● ● ●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●● ●

    ● ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    0 1 2 3 4

    −0.

    20−

    0.15

    −0.

    10−

    0.05

    0.00

    0.05

    Basis coeff, k= 3

    depth ratio

    19 / 28

  • Recall example eclipsing binary training data

    I SAMSI-ICTS meeting discussion: Matthew Graham pointed out thatthe eclipse depth ratio does not only take a few discrete values and thishas caused difficulties for templates before

    I Prompted investigation into incorporating eclipse depth ratio into templateconstruction

    20 / 28

  • Illustration using EA class: split the sample according to binning the depth

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    0.4

    0.2

    0.0

    −0.

    2−

    0.4

    Phase

    Ligh

    tcur

    ves

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.

    40.

    20.

    0−

    0.2

    −0.

    4

    Phase

    Ligh

    tcur

    ves

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    0.4

    0.2

    0.0

    −0.

    2−

    0.4

    Phase

    Ligh

    tcur

    ves

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    0.4

    0.2

    0.0

    −0.

    2−

    0.4

    Phase

    Ligh

    tcur

    ves

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    −3

    −2

    −1

    01

    2

    Bin 1 : 1−st eigenfn ( 39.45 %)

    Phase

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    −3

    −2

    −1

    01

    23

    Bin 2 : 1−st eigenfn ( 44.48 %)

    Phase

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    −2

    −1

    01

    2

    Bin 3 : 1−st eigenfn ( 49.62 %)

    Phase

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    −2

    −1

    01

    2

    Bin 4 : 1−st eigenfn ( 55.96 %)

    Phase

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    0 1 2 3 4

    −0.

    100.

    000.

    050.

    100.

    15

    Basis coeff, k= 1

    depth ratio

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    0 1 2 3 4

    −0.

    10.

    00.

    10.

    20.

    3

    Basis coeff, k= 1

    depth ratio

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●●

    ●●

    ●●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    0 1 2 3 4

    −0.

    100.

    000.

    050.

    100.

    15

    Basis coeff, k= 1

    depth ratio

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    0 1 2 3 4

    −0.

    10.

    00.

    10.

    2

    Basis coeff, k= 1

    depth ratio

    21 / 28

  • Probabilistic templates using FPCA and other covariate info

    I Common FPCA assumes that the curves have the same distribution !

    I Account for additional ligthcurve info this when constructing theprobabilistic template. For eclipsing binaries, construct FPCA basis usingfor depth ratio

    Recal Karhunen-Loève representation of Yl(t) (using FPCA basis ):

    Yl(t) = µ(t) +∑k

    ξlkφk(t)

    Extend the framework to incorporate additional covariate (call it zl):

    I Approach I: Incorporate covariate in the mean only, µ(t, z)

    I Approach II: Incorporate covariate in mean µ(t, z) + eigenfns {φk (t, z) : k}

    Similar ideas to Jiang and Wang (2010)

    22 / 28

  • Approach I: Yl(t; zl) = µ(t, zl) +∑

    k φk(t)ξk(zl) + Noisetl

    Illustration using EA lightcurves

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    3.0

    3.5

    Estimated mean fn (I) EA

    Phase

    log

    dept

    h ra

    tio

    −0.4

    −0.2

    0.0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    −2

    −1

    01

    2

    1−st eigenfunction ( 47.17 %)

    Phase

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    −2

    −1

    01

    2

    2−nd eigenfunction ( 13.61 %)

    Phase

    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

    −2

    −1

    01

    2

    3−rd eigenfunction ( 9.16 %)

    Phase

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    0 1 2 3

    −0.

    10.

    00.

    10.

    2

    Basis coeff, k= 1

    depth ratio

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●

    ●●

    ●●

    ● ●●

    ●●

    ●●

    ●●