MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969936152 · doi:10.1214/aos/1021379865

Bootrapping robust estimates of regression

2002· article· en· W1969936152 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Statistics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsOutlierQuantileStatisticsRobust regressionMonte Carlo methodConfidence intervalRepresentation (politics)Linear regressionQuantile regressionApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a new computer-intensive method to estimate the distribution of robust regression estimates. The basic idea behind our method is to bootstrap a reweighted representation of the estimates. To obtain a bootstrap method that is asymptotically correct, we include the auxiliary scale estimate in our reweighted representation of the estimates. Our method is computationally simple because for each bootstrap sample we only have to solve a linear system of equations. The weights we use are decreasing functions of the absolute value of the residuals and hence outlying observations receive small weights. This results in a bootstrap method that is resistant to the presence of outliers in the data. The breakdown points of the quantile estimates derived with this method are higher than those obtained with the bootstrap. We illustrate our method on two datasets and we report the results of a Monte Carlo experiment on confidence intervals for the parameters of the linear model.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.504
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.021 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it