Empirical Likelihood‐based Inference in Linear Models with Missing Data
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
The missing response problem in linear regression is studied. An adjusted empirical likelihood approach to inference on the mean of the response variable is developed. A non‐parametric version of Wilks's theorem for the adjusted empirical likelihood is proved, and the corresponding empirical likelihood confidence interval for the mean is constructed. With auxiliary information, an empirical likelihood‐based estimator with asymptotic normality is defined and an adjusted empirical log‐likelihood function with asymptotic χ 2 is derived. A simulation study is conducted to compare the adjusted empirical likelihood methods and the normal approximation methods in terms of coverage accuracies and average lengths of the confidence intervals. Based on biases and standard errors, a comparison is also made between the empirical likelihood‐based estimator and related estimators by simulation. Our simulation indicates that the adjusted empirical likelihood methods perform competitively and the use of auxiliary information provides improved inferences.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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