MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388051301 · doi:10.4236/am.2023.1410042

Constructing Confidence Regions for Autoregressive-Model Parameters

2023· article· en· W4388051301 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mathematics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive modelNuisance parameterEstimatorMathematicsDelta methodApplied mathematicsLikelihood functionLogarithmMonte Carlo methodStatisticsConfidence intervalConfidence regionCentral limit theoremCovariance matrixEstimation theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss formulas and techniques for finding maximum-likelihood estimators of parameters of autoregressive (with particular emphasis on Markov and Yule) models, computing their asymptotic variance-covariance matrix and displaying the resulting confidence regions; Monte Carlo simulation is then used to establish the accuracy of the corresponding level of confidence. The results indicate that a direct application of the Central Limit Theorem yields errors too large to be acceptable; instead, we recommend using a technique based directly on the natural logarithm of the likelihood function, verifying its substantially higher accuracy. Our study is then extended to the case of estimating only a subset of a model’s parameters, when the remaining ones (called nuisance) are of no interest to us.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.168 · 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