Weighted quantile regression with nonelliptically structured covariates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although quantile regression estimators are robust against low leverage observations with atypically large responses (Koenker & Bassett 1978), they can be seriously affected by a few points that deviate from the majority of the sample covariates. This problem can be alleviated by downweighting observations with high leverage. Unfortunately, when the covariates are not elliptically distributed, Mahalanobis distances may not be able to correctly identify atypical points. In this paper the authors discuss the use of weights based on a new leverage measure constructed using Rosenblatt's multivariate transformation which is able to reflect nonelliptical structures in the covariate space. The resulting weighted estimators are consistent, asymptotically normal, and have a bounded influence function. In addition, the authors also discuss a selection criterion for choosing the downweighting scheme. They illustrate their approach with child growth data from Finland. Finally, their simulation studies suggest that this methodology has good finite‐sample properties.
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 | 0.000 | 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".