On Parameter Estimation for Exponential Dispersion Arma Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A class of autoregressive moving‐average (ARMA) models proposed by Jørgensen and Song [ Journal of Applied Probability (1998), vol. 35, pp. 78–92] with exponential dispersion model margins are useful to deal with non‐normal stationary time series with high‐order autocorrelation. One property associated with the class of models is that the projection process takes the exact form of the classical Box and Jenkins ARMA representation, leading to considerable ease to establish theories. This paper focuses on the issue of parameter estimation for such models, which has not been thoroughly investigated in Jørgensen and Song's paper. The key of the proposed approach is to treat the residual process associated with the projection essentially as a measurement error, which enables us to formulate directly an ARMA representation for the observed time series. The parameter estimation therefore becomes straightforward using the existing methods for the Box and Jenkins ARMA models such as the quasi‐likelihood method. The approach is illustrated by simulation studies and by an analysis of myoclonic seizure counts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".