Nonparametric confidence regions via the analytic wild bootstrap
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
Abstract The wild bootstrap is a nonparametric tool that can be used to estimate a sampling distribution in the presence of heteroscedastic errors. In particular, the wild bootstrap enables us to compute confidence regions for regression parameters under non‐i.i.d. models. While the wild bootstrap may perform well in these settings, its obvious drawback is a lack of computational efficiency. The wild bootstrap requires a large number of bootstrap replications, making the use of this tool impractical when dealing with big data. We introduce the analytic wild bootstrap (ANWB), which provides a nonparametric alternative way of constructing confidence regions for regression parameters. The ANWB is superior to the wild bootstrap from a computational standpoint while exhibiting similar finite‐sample performance. We report simulation results for both least squares and ridge regression. Additionally, we test the ANWB on a real dataset and compare its performance with that of other standard approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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