Simulation study to evaluate when Plasmode simulation is superior to parametric simulation in estimating the mean squared error of the least squares estimator in linear regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulation is a crucial tool for the evaluation and comparison of statistical methods. How to design fair and neutral simulation studies is therefore of great interest for researchers developing new methods and practitioners confronted with the choice of the most suitable method. The term simulation usually refers to parametric simulation, that is, computer experiments using artificial data made up of pseudo-random numbers. Plasmode simulation, that is, computer experiments using the combination of resampling feature data from a real-life dataset and generating the target variable with a known user-selected outcome-generating model (OGM), is an alternative that is often claimed to produce more realistic data. We compare parametric and Plasmode simulation for the example of estimating the mean squared error (MSE) of the least squares estimator (LSE) in linear regression. If the true underlying data-generating process (DGP) and the OGM were known, parametric simulation would obviously be the best choice in terms of estimating the MSE well. However, in reality, both are usually unknown, so researchers have to make assumptions: in Plasmode simulation for the OGM, in parametric simulation for both DGP and OGM. Most likely, these assumptions do not exactly reflect the truth. Here, we aim to find out how assumptions deviating from the true DGP and the true OGM affect the performance of parametric and Plasmode simulations in the context of MSE estimation for the LSE and in which situations which simulation type is preferable. Our results suggest that the preferable simulation method depends on many factors, including the number of features, and on how and to what extent the assumptions of a parametric simulation differ from the true DGP. Also, the resampling strategy used for Plasmode influences the results. In particular, subsampling with a small sampling proportion can be recommended.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".