A General Framework for Quantile Estimation with Incomplete Data
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
Quantile estimation has attracted significant research interests in recent years. However, there has been only a limited literature on quantile estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In this paper, we propose a general framework to address this problem. Our framework combines the two widely adopted approaches for missing data analysis, the imputation approach and the inverse probability weighting approach, via the empirical likelihood method. The proposed method is capable of dealing with many different missingness settings. We mainly study three of them: (i) estimating the marginal quantile of a response that is subject to missingness while there are fully observed covariates; (ii) estimating the conditional quantile of a fully observed response while the covariates are partially available; and (iii) estimating the conditional quantile of a response that is subject to missingness with fully observed covariates and extra auxiliary variables. The proposed method allows multiple models for both the missingness probability and the data distribution. The resulting estimators are multiply robust in the sense that they are consistent if any one of these models is correctly specified. The asymptotic distributions are established using the empirical process theory.
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 | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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