Doubly robust weighted composite quantile regression based on SCAD‐<i>L</i><sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, a robust variable selection procedure based on the weighted composite quantile regression (WCQR) is proposed. Compared with the composite quantile regression (CQR), WCQR is robust to heavy‐tailed errors and outliers in the explanatory variables. For the choice of the weights in the WCQR, we employ a weighting scheme based on the principal component method. To select variables with grouping effect, we consider WCQR with SCAD‐L2penalization. Furthermore, under some suitable assumptions, the theoretical properties, including the consistency and oracle property of the estimator, are established with a diverging number of parameters. In addition, we study the numerical performance of the proposed method in the case of ultrahigh‐dimensional data. Simulation studies and real examples are provided to demonstrate the superiority of our method over the CQR method when there are outliers in the explanatory variables and/or the random error is from a heavy‐tailed distribution.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".