Large Sample Properties of the Three-Step Euclidean Likelihood Estimators under Model Misspecification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article studies the three-step Euclidean likelihood (3S) estimator and its corrected version as proposed by Antoine et al. (2007 Antoine, B., Bonnal, H., Renault, E. (2007). On the efficient use of the informational content of estimating equations: Implied probabilities and Euclidean empirical likelihood. Journal of Econometrics 138:461–487.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) in globally misspecified models. We establish that the 3S estimator stays -convergent and asymptotically Gaussian. The discontinuity in the shrinkage factor makes the analysis of the corrected-3S estimator harder to carry out in misspecified models. We propose a slight modification to this factor to control its rate of divergence in case of misspecification. We show that the resulting modified-3S estimator is also higher order equivalent to the maximum empirical likelihood (EL) estimator in well-specified models and -convergent and asymptotically Gaussian in misspecified models. Its asymptotic distribution robust to misspecification is also provided. Because of these properties, both the 3S and the modified-3S estimators could be considered as computationally attractive alternatives to the exponentially tilted empirical likelihood estimator proposed by Schennach (2007 Schennach, S. M. (2007). Point estimation with exponentially tilted empirical likelihood. Annals of Statistics 35:634–672.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) which also is higher order equivalent to EL in well-specified models and -convergent in misspecified models.
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 | 0.045 | 0.256 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".