MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007876140 · doi:10.1002/asmb.933

<i>L</i><sub>1</sub>penalty and shrinkage estimation in partially linear models with random coefficient autoregressive errors

2011· article· en· W2007876140 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

VenueApplied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEstimatorLasso (programming language)ShrinkageAutoregressive modelMean squared errorMathematicsLinear regressionLinear modelShrinkage estimatorContext (archaeology)StatisticsApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceBias of an estimatorMinimum-variance unbiased estimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In partially linear models, we consider methodology for simultaneous model selection and parameter estimation with random coefficient autoregressive errors by using lasso and shrinkage strategies. We provide natural adaptive estimators that significantly improve upon the classical procedures in the situation where some of the predictors are nuisance variables that may or may not affect the association between the response and the main predictors. In the context of two competing partially linear regression models (full and submodels), we consider an adaptive shrinkage estimation strategy and propose the shrinkage estimator and the positive‐rule shrinkage estimator. We develop the properties of these estimators by using the notion of asymptotic distributional risk. The shrinkage estimators are shown to have a higher efficiency than the classical estimators for a wide class of models. For the lasso‐type estimation strategy, we devise efficient algorithms to obtain numerical results. We compare the relative performance of lasso with the shrinkage estimator and the other estimators. Monte Carlo simulation experiments are conducted for various combinations of the nuisance parameters and sample size, and the performance of each method is evaluated in terms of simulated mean squared error. The comparison reveals that lasso and shrinkage strategies outperform the classical procedure. The relative performance of lasso and shrinkage strategies is comparable. The shrinkage estimators perform better than the lasso strategy in the effective part of the parameter space when, and only when, there are many nuisance variables in the model. A data example is showcased to illustrate the usefulness of suggested methods. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.221 · 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