Hypothesis testing in finite mixture of regressions: Sparsity and model selection uncertainty
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
Abstract Sparse finite mixture of regression models arise in several scientific applications and testing hypotheses concerning regression coefficients in such models is fundamental to data analysis. In this article, we describe an approach for hypothesis testing of regression coefficients that take into account model selection uncertainty. The proposed methods involve (i) estimating the active predictor set of the sparse model using a consistent model selector and (ii) testing hypotheses concerning the regression coefficients associated with the estimated active predictor set. The methods asymptotically control the family wise error rate at a pre‐specified nominal level, while accounting for variable selection uncertainty. Additionally, we provide examples of consistent model selectors and describe methods for finite sample improvements. Performance of the methods is also illustrated using simulations. A real data analysis is included to illustrate the applicability of the methods. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 46: 429–457; 2018 © 2018 Statistical Society of Canada
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