On Quantile Regression in Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces with Data Sparsity Constraint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For spline regressions, it is well known that the choice of knots is crucial for the performance of the estimator. As a general learning framework covering the smoothing splines, learning in a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS) has a similar issue. However, the selection of training data points for kernel functions in the RKHS representation has not been carefully studied in the literature. In this paper we study quantile regression as an example of learning in a RKHS. In this case, the regular squared norm penalty does not perform training data selection. We propose a data sparsity constraint that imposes thresholding on the kernel function coefficients to achieve a sparse kernel function representation. We demonstrate that the proposed data sparsity method can have competitive prediction performance for certain situations, and have comparable performance in other cases compared to that of the traditional squared norm penalty. Therefore, the data sparsity method can serve as a competitive alternative to the squared norm penalty method. Some theoretical properties of our proposed method using the data sparsity constraint are obtained. Both simulated and real data sets are used to demonstrate the usefulness of our data sparsity constraint.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".