Empirical likelihood for the varying‐coefficient single‐index model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article the author investigates the application of the empirical‐likelihood‐based inference for the parameters of varying‐coefficient single‐index model (VCSIM). Unlike the usual cases, if there is no bias correction the asymptotic distribution of the empirical likelihood ratio cannot achieve the standard chi‐squared distribution. To this end, a bias‐corrected empirical likelihood method is employed to construct the confidence regions (intervals) of regression parameters, which have two advantages, compared with those based on normal approximation, that is, (1) they do not impose prior constraints on the shape of the regions; (2) they do not require the construction of a pivotal quantity and the regions are range preserving and transformation respecting. A simulation study is undertaken to compare the empirical likelihood with the normal approximation in terms of coverage accuracies and average areas/lengths of confidence regions/intervals. A real data example is given to illustrate the proposed approach. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 38: 434–452; 2010 © 2010 Statistical Society of Canada
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".