MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970825665 · doi:10.1111/1467-9876.00406

A Bounded Influence Regression Estimator Based on the Statistics of the Hat Matrix

2003· article· en· W1970825665 on OpenAlexaff
Alan D. Chave, David J. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersWoods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsEstimatorMathematicsStatisticsLeverage (statistics)OutlierQuantile regressionQuantileBounded functionScatter matrixRobust regressionDiagonalMatrix (chemical analysis)Estimation of covariance matricesMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Many geophysical regression problems require the analysis of large (more than 104 values) data sets, and, because the data may represent mixtures of concurrent natural processes with widely varying statistical properties, contamination of both response and predictor variables is common. Existing bounded influence or high breakdown point estimators frequently lack the ability to eliminate extremely influential data and/or the computational efficiency to handle large data sets. A new bounded influence estimator is proposed that combines high asymptotic efficiency for normal data, high breakdown point behaviour with contaminated data and computational simplicity for large data sets. The algorithm combines a standard M-estimator to downweight data corresponding to extreme regression residuals and removal of overly influential predictor values (leverage points) on the basis of the statistics of the hat matrix diagonal elements. For this, the exact distribution of the hat matrix diagonal elements pii for complex multivariate Gaussian predictor data is shown to be β(pii, m, N−m), where N is the number of data and m is the number of parameters. Real geophysical data from an auroral zone magnetotelluric study which exhibit severe outlier and leverage point contamination are used to illustrate the estimator’s performance. The examples also demonstrate the utility of looking at both the residual and the hat matrix distributions through quantile–quantile plots to diagnose robust regression problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics)Same topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207