Performance of Positive Rule Estimator in the Ill-Conditioned Gaussian Regression Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ridge regression is a widely used method to estimate the regression parameters for an ill-conditioned model. This paper describes the estimation of the regression parameters for the Gaussian linear regression model with ill-conditioned explanatory variables. We propose some improved estimators, namely, the unrestricted ridge regression estimator, restricted ridge regression estimator, preliminary test ridge regression estimator, shrinkage ridge regression estimator and positive rule ridge regression estimators in this paper. The performances of the proposed estimators are compared based on the quadratic bias and risk functions under both null and alternative hypotheses, which specify certain restrictions on the regression parameters. The conditions of superiority of the proposed estimators for departure and ridge parameters are given. It is demonstrated that unlike the positive rule shrinkage (PR) estimator which dominates both unrestricted and shrinkage estimators, the positive rule ridge regression estimator (PRRRE) utilizes both sample and non-sample information but does not outperform the unrestricted and shrinkage ridge regression estimators for an ill-conditioned data. Some graphical representations have been presented which support the findings of the paper.
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 | 0.024 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".