Optimal estimating functions in incomplete data and length biased sampling data problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is well known that the score function is the optimal estimating function among all regular unbiased estimating functions (Godambe, 1960). In the presence of incomplete data such as missing data or length biased sampling data, Horvitz and Thompson's (1952) method is an effective way of eliminating the possible bias induced by using complete data only. In this article, we show that the inverse weighted Horvitz and Thompson score estimating function is not optimal in the presence of incomplete data. By using Godambe's estimating function theory, we can identify the optimal estimating function in this situation. In the case of the accelerated failure time model with length bias sampling data, the optimal estimating function can produce an unbiased estimator for the slope parameter even when the underlying density function is misspecified. Simulation studies show that the estimate derived from the optimal estimating function can be substantially better than the estimate derived from the inverse weighted score estimating function. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 39: 510–518; 2011 © 2011 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".