Model-robust designs for nonlinear quantile regression
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
We construct robust designs for nonlinear quantile regression, in the presence of both a possibly misspecified nonlinear quantile function and heteroscedasticity of an unknown form. The asymptotic mean-squared error of the quantile estimate is evaluated and maximized over a neighbourhood of the fitted quantile regression model. This maximum depends on the scale function and on the design. We entertain two methods to find designs that minimize the maximum loss. The first is local - we minimize for given values of the parameters and the scale function, using a sequential approach, whereby each new design point minimizes the subsequent loss, given the current design. The second is adaptive - at each stage, the maximized loss is evaluated at quantile estimates of the parameters, and a kernel estimate of scale, and then the next design point is obtained as in the sequential method. In the context of a Michaelis-Menten response model for an estrogen/hormone study, and a variety of scale functions, we demonstrate that the adaptive approach performs as well, in large study sizes, as if the parameter values and scale function were known beforehand and the sequential method applied. When the sequential method uses an incorrectly specified scale function, the adaptive method yields an, often substantial, improvement. The performance of the adaptive designs for smaller study sizes is assessed and seen to still be very favourable, especially so since the prior information required to design sequentially is rarely available.
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 | 0.084 | 0.504 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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