Robust quasi-likelihood inference in generalized linear mixed models with outliers
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
It is well known that in a traditional outlier-free situation, the generalized quasi-likelihood (GQL) approach [B.C. Sutradhar, On exact quasilikelihood inference in generalized linear mixed models, Sankhya: Indian J. Statist. 66 (2004), pp. 261–289] performs very well to obtain the consistent as well as the efficient estimates for the parameters involved in the generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). In this paper, we first examine the effect of the presence of one or more outliers on the GQL estimation for the parameters in such GLMMs, especially in two important models such as count and binary mixed models. The outliers appear to cause serious biases and hence inconsistency in the estimation. As a remedy, we then propose a robust GQL (RGQL) approach in order to obtain the consistent estimates for the parameters in the GLMMs in the presence of one or more outliers. An extensive simulation study is conducted to examine the consistency performance of the proposed RGQL approach.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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