MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289998504 · doi:10.1080/01621459.2017.1319840

Oracle Estimation of a Change Point in High-Dimensional Quantile Regression

2017· article· en· W2289998504 on OpenAlexaff
Sokbae Lee, Yuan Liao, Myung Hwan Seo, Youngki Shin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEuropean Research CouncilEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsQuantile regressionQuantileOracleEstimatorCovariateMathematicsEconometricsFunction (biology)StatisticsQuantile functionRegression analysisRegressionApplied mathematicsComputer scienceProbability distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we consider a high-dimensional quantile regression model where the sparsity structure may differ between two sub-populations. We develop ℓ1-penalized estimators of both regression coefficients and the threshold parameter. Our penalized estimators not only select covariates but also discriminate between a model with homogenous sparsity and a model with a change point. As a result, it is not necessary to know or pretest whether the change point is present, or where it occurs. Our estimator of the change point achieves an oracle property in the sense that its asymptotic distribution is the same as if the unknown active sets of regression coefficients were known. Importantly, we establish this oracle property without a perfect covariate selection, thereby avoiding the need for the minimum level condition on the signals of active covariates. Dealing with high-dimensional quantile regression with an unknown change point calls for a new proof technique since the quantile loss function is nonsmooth and furthermore the corresponding objective function is nonconvex with respect to the change point. The technique developed in this article is applicable to a general M-estimation framework with a change point, which may be of independent interest. The proposed methods are then illustrated via Monte Carlo experiments and an application to tipping in the dynamics of racial segregation. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207