Efficiency and Validity Analyses of Two-Stage Estimation Procedures and Derived Testing Procedures in Quantitative Linear Models with AR(1) Errors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a quantitative linear model with errors following a stationary Gaussian, first-order autoregressive or AR(1) process, Generalized Least Squares (GLS) on raw data and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) on prewhitened data are efficient methods of estimation of the slope parameters when the autocorrelation parameter of the error AR(1) process, ρ, is known. In practice, ρ is generally unknown. In the so-called two-stage estimation procedures, ρ is then estimated first before using the estimate of ρ to transform the data and estimate the slope parameters by OLS on the transformed data. Different estimators of ρ have been considered in previous studies. In this article, we study nine two-stage estimation procedures for their efficiency in estimating the slope parameters. Six of them (i.e., three noniterative, three iterative) are based on three estimators of ρ that have been considered previously. Two more (i.e., one noniterative, one iterative) are based on a new estimator of ρ that we propose: it is provided by the sample autocorrelation coefficient of the OLS residuals at lag 1, denoted r(1). Lastly, REstricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) represents a different type of two-stage estimation procedure whose efficiency has not been compared to the others yet. We also study the validity of the testing procedures derived from GLS and the nine two-stage estimation procedures. Efficiency and validity are analyzed in a Monte Carlo study. Three types of explanatory variable x in a simple quantitative linear model with AR(1) errors are considered in the time domain: Case 1, x is fixed; Case 2, x is purely random; and Case 3, x follows an AR(1) process with the same autocorrelation parameter value as the error AR(1) process. In a preliminary step, the number of inadmissible estimates and the efficiency of the different estimators of ρ are compared empirically, whereas their approximate expected value in finite samples and their asymptotic variance are derived theoretically. Thereafter, the efficiency of the estimation procedures and the validity of the derived testing procedures are discussed in terms of the sample size and the magnitude and sign of ρ. The noniterative two-stage estimation procedure based on the new estimator of ρ is shown to be more efficient for moderate values of ρ at small sample sizes. With the exception of small sample sizes, REML and its derived F-test perform the best overall. The asymptotic equivalence of two-stage estimation procedures, besides REML, is observed empirically. Differences related to the nature, fixed or random (uncorrelated or autocorrelated), of the explanatory variable are also discussed.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it