Sumca: Simple, Unified, Monte-Carlo-assisted Approach to Second-Order Unbiased Mean-Squared Prediction Error Estimation
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
Summary We propose a simple, unified, Monte-Carlo-assisted approach (called ‘Sumca’) to second-order unbiased estimation of the mean-squared prediction error (MSPE) of a small area predictor. The MSPE estimator proposed is easy to derive, has a simple expression and applies to a broad range of predictors that include the traditional empirical best linear unbiased predictor, empirical best predictor and post-model-selection empirical best linear unbiased predictor and empirical best predictor as special cases. Furthermore, the leading term of the MSPE estimator proposed is guaranteed positive; the lower order term corresponds to a bias correction, which can be evaluated via a Monte Carlo method. The computational burden for the Monte Carlo evaluation is much less, compared with other Monte-Carlo-based methods that have been used for producing second-order unbiased MSPE estimators, such as the double bootstrap and Monte Carlo jackknife. The Sumca estimator also has a nice stability feature. Theoretical and empirical results demonstrate properties and advantages of the Sumca estimator.
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 | 0.003 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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