MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135587851 · doi:10.6339/jds.201807_16(3).0002

Minimum Profile Hellinger Distance Estimation for A Two-Sample Location-Shifted Model

2021· article· en· W3135587851 on OpenAlexaff
Haocheng Li, Jingjing Wu, Jian Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Data Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHellinger distanceNonparametric statisticsParametric statisticsRobustness (evolution)MathematicsAsymptotic distributionParametric modelStatisticsSemiparametric regressionSample size determinationConsistency (knowledge bases)Estimation theoryApplied mathematicsSemiparametric modelEstimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minimum Hellinger distance estimation (MHDE) for parametric model is obtained by minimizing the Hellinger distance between an assumed parametric model and a nonparametric estimation of the model. MHDE receives increasing attention for its efficiency and robustness. Recently, it has been extended from parametric models to semiparametric models. This manuscript considers a two-sample semiparametric location-shifted model where two independent samples are generated from two identical symmetric distributions with different location parameters. We propose to use profiling technique in order to utilize the information from both samples to estimate unknown symmetric function. With the profiled estimation of the function, we propose a minimum profile Hellinger distance estimation (MPHDE) for the two unknown location parameters. This MPHDE is similar to but dif- ferent from the one introduced in Wu and Karunamuni (2015), and thus the results presented in this work is not a trivial application of their method. The difference is due to the two-sample nature of the model and thus we use different approaches to study its asymptotic properties such as consistency and asymptotic normality. The efficiency and robustness properties of the proposed MPHDE are evaluated empirically though simulation studies. A real data from a breast cancer study is analyzed to illustrate the use of the proposed method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.244
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Data ScienceSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207