The EAS approach for graphical selection consistency in vector autoregression models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As evidenced by various recent and significant papers within the frequentist literature, along with numerous applications in macroeconomics, genomics, and neuroscience, there continues to be substantial interest in understanding the theoretical estimation properties of high‐dimensional vector autoregression (VAR) models. To date, however, while Bayesian VAR (BVAR) models have been developed and studied empirically (primarily in the econometrics literature), there exist very few theoretical investigations of the repeated‐sampling properties for BVAR models in the literature, and there exist no generalized fiducial investigations of VAR models. In this direction, we construct methodology via the ‐admissible subsets (EAS) approach for inference based on a generalized fiducial distribution of relative model probabilities over all sets of active/inactive components (graphs) of the VAR transition matrix. We provide a mathematical proof of pairwise and strong graphical selection consistency for the EAS approach for stable VAR(1) models, and demonstrate empirically that it is an effective strategy in high‐dimensional settings.
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 | 0.017 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".