Robust nonparametric regression: Review and practical considerations
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
Nonparametric regression models offer a way to understand and quantify relationships between variables without having to identify an appropriate family of possible regression functions . Although many estimation methods for these models have been proposed in the literature, most of them can be highly sensitive to the presence of a small proportion of atypical observations in the training set. A review of outlier robust estimation methods for nonparametric regression models is provided, paying particular attention to practical considerations. Since outliers can also influence negatively the regression estimator by affecting the selection of bandwidths or smoothing parameters, a discussion of robust alternatives for this task is also included. Using many of the “classical” nonparametric regression estimators (and their robust counterparts) can be very challenging in settings with a moderate or large number of explanatory variables , so recently proposed robust nonparametric regression methods that scale well with a growing number of covariates are also discussed.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it