Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions with First Order Autoregressive Disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Seemingly Unrelated Regressions (SUR) model, disturbances are assumed to be correlated across equations and it will be erroneous to assume that disturbances behave independently, hence, the need for an efficient estimator. Literature has revealed gain in efficiency of the SUR estimator over the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimator when the errors are correlated across equations. This work, however, considers methods of estimating a set of regression equations when disturbances are both contemporaneously and serially correlated. The Feasible Generalized Least Squares (FGLS), OLS and Iterative Ordinary Least Squares (IOLS) estimation techniques were considered and the form of autocorrelation examined. Prais-Winstein transformation was conducted on simulated data for the different sample sizes used to remove autocorrelations. Results from simulation studies showed that the FGLS was efficient both in small samples and large samples. Comparative performances of the estimators were investigated on the basis of the standard errors of the parameter estimates when estimating the model with and without AR(1) and the results showed that the estimators performed better with AR(1) as the sample size increased especially from 20. On the criterion of the Root Mean Square, the FGLS was found to have performed better with AR(1) and it was revealed that bias reduces as sample size increases. In all cases considered, the SUR estimator performed best. It was consistently most efficient than the OLS and IOLS estimators.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".