Simple and Reliable Estimators of Coefficients of Interest in a Model With High-Dimensional Confounding Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Often an investigator is interested in a single parameter or low-dimensional parameter vector (e.g. a treatment effect) in a regression model, rather than in the full set of regression coefficients. There may also be a relatively high-dimensional set of potential explanatory variables other than the effect of interest which, if omitted, could bias the estimate of the parameter of interest. However there may be too many such variables to include all of them without substantial efficiency loss. We suggest a simple, easily computed estimator for this case, using principal components to compute auxiliary regressors from the set of potential controls, and establish the limit properties of the estimator allowing for dependence and heterogeneity as well as increasing dimension of the set of controls. We also provide finite-sample evidence on the performance of the estimator where principal components are selected in a one-dimensional search using an appropriate information criterion as stopping rule for the number of components. The results suggest that the estimator has practical usefulness in small samples.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".