MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395046903 · doi:10.1111/sjos.12717

Empirical likelihood M‐estimation for the varying‐coefficient model with functional response

2024· article· en· W4395046903 on OpenAlexafffund
Xingcai Zhou, Dehan Kong, Matthew Pietrosanu, Linglong Kong, Rohana J. Karunamuni

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Statistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsQuantileMathematicsEmpirical likelihoodEstimatorStatisticsNonparametric statisticsLikelihood-ratio testContext (archaeology)Statistical inferenceInferenceEconometricsScore testArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work is motivated by a gap in the functional data analysis literature, particularly in the context of neuroimaging, regarding the ability of functional models to robustly accommodate intra‐observation dependence. In response, we propose an M‐estimator based on generalized empirical likelihood for the varying‐coefficient model with a functional response. We develop statistical inference procedures, simultaneous confidence regions, and a global general linear hypothesis test for the model's functional coefficient. Our theoretical results establish the weak convergence of the log‐likelihood ratio process, a nonparametric version of Wilks' theorem for the log‐likelihood ratio, and asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator. Through a simulation study, we show that the proposed confidence sets have close‐to‐nominal coverage probabilities. In a real‐world application to a neuroimaging dataset, we show that mini‐mental state examination score and apolipoprotein E genotype have significant associations with fractional anisotropy, while associations with gender and age are only present at high quantile levels.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207