MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224244396 · doi:10.1080/03610926.2022.2064503

Efficient estimation method for generalized ARFIMA models

2022· article· en· W4224244396 on OpenAlexaff
Sharandeep Singh Pandher, Shakhawat Hossain, Kamon Budsaba, Andrei Volodin

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorCovariateMathematicsShrinkage estimatorStatisticsShrinkageEconometricsEfficient estimatorMinimum-variance unbiased estimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on pretest and shrinkage estimation strategies for generalized autoregressive fractionally integrated moving average (GARFIMA) models when some of the regression parameters are possible to restrict to a subspace. These estimation strategies are constructed on the assumption that some covariates are not statistically significant for the response. To define the pretest and shrinkage estimators, we fit two models: one includes all the covariates and the others are subject to linear constraint based on the auxiliary information of the insignificant covariates. The unrestricted and restricted estimators are then combined optimally to get the pretest and shrinkage estimators. We enlighten the statistical properties of the shrinkage and pretest estimators in terms of asymptotic bias and risk. We examine the comparative performance of pretest and shrinkage estimators with respect to unrestricted maximum partial likelihood estimator (UMPLE). We show that the shrinkage estimators have a lower relative mean squared error as compared to the UMPLE when the number of significant covariates exceeds two. Monte Carlo simulations are conducted to examine the relative performance of the proposed estimators to the UMPLE. An empirical application is used for the usefulness of our proposed estimation strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and MethodsSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207