A Bayesian mixture of experts approach to covariate misclassification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article considers misclassification of categorical covariates in the context of regression analysis; if unaccounted for, such errors usually result in mis‐estimation of model parameters. With the presence of additional covariates, we exploit the fact that explicitly modelling non‐differential misclassification with respect to the response leads to a mixture regression representation. Under the framework of mixture of experts, we enable the reclassification probabilities to vary with other covariates, a situation commonly caused by misclassification that is differential on certain covariates and/or by dependence between the misclassified and additional covariates. Using Bayesian inference, the mixture approach combines learning from data with external information on the magnitude of errors when it is available. In addition to proving the theoretical identifiability of the mixture of experts approach, we study the amount of efficiency loss resulting from covariate misclassification and the usefulness of external information in mitigating such loss. The method is applied to adjust for misclassification on self‐reported cocaine use in the Longitudinal Studies of HIV‐Associated Lung Infections and Complications.
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 | 0.035 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".