Shrinkage and penalized estimators in weighted least absolute deviations regression models
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
In this paper, we consider the estimation problem of the weighted least absolute deviation (WLAD) regression parameter vector when there are some outliers or heavy-tailed errors in the response and the leverage points in the predictors. We propose the pretest and James–Stein shrinkage WLAD estimators when some of the parameters may be subject to certain restrictions. We derive the asymptotic risk of the pretest and shrinkage WLAD estimators and show that if the shrinkage dimension exceeds two, the asymptotic risk of the shrinkage WLAD estimator is strictly less than the unrestricted WLAD estimator. On the other hand, the risk of the pretest WLAD estimator depends on the validity of the restrictions on the parameters. Furthermore, we study the WLAD absolute shrinkage and selection operator (WLAD-LASSO) and compare its relative performance with the pretest and shrinkage WLAD estimators. A simulation study is conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed estimators relative to that of the unrestricted WLAD estimator. A real-life data example using body fat study is used to illustrate the performance of the suggested estimators.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it