MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971762149 · doi:10.1214/aos/996986507

Maximum Bias Curves for Robust Regression with Non-elliptical Regressors

2001· article· en· W1971762149 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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsRobustness (evolution)RegressionStatisticsRegression analysisDistribution (mathematics)Omitted-variable biasRobust regressionEconometricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maximum bias curves for some regression estimates were previously derived assuming that (i) the intercept term is known and/or (ii) the regressors have an elliptical distribution. We present a single method to obtain the maximum bias curves for a large class of regression estimates. Our results are derived under very mild conditions and, in particular, do not require the restrictive assumptions (i) and (ii) above. Using these results it is shown that the maximum bias curves heavily depend on the shape of the regressors' distribution which we call the x-configuration. Despite this big effect, the relative performance of different estimates remains unchanged under different x-configurations. We also explore the links between maxbias curves and bias bounds. Finally, we compare the robustness properties of some estimates for the intercept parameter.

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)0.001
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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.438
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.039 · 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