Instrumental Variable Method for Regularized Estimation in Generalized Linear Measurement Error Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regularized regression methods have attracted much attention in the literature, mainly due to its application in high-dimensional variable selection problems. Most existing regularization methods assume that the predictors are directly observed and precisely measured. It is well known that in a low-dimensional regression model if some covariates are measured with error, then the naive estimators that ignore the measurement error are biased and inconsistent. However, the impact of measurement error in regularized estimation procedures is not clear. For example, it is known that the ordinary least squares estimate of the regression coefficient in a linear model is attenuated towards zero and, on the other hand, the variance of the observed surrogate predictor is inflated. Therefore, it is unclear how the interaction of these two factors affects the selection outcome. To correct for the measurement error effects, some researchers assume that the measurement error covariance matrix is known or can be estimated using external data. In this paper, we propose the regularized instrumental variable method for generalized linear measurement error models. We show that the proposed approach yields a consistent variable selection procedure and root-n consistent parameter estimators. Extensive finite sample simulation studies show that the proposed method performs satisfactorily in both linear and generalized linear models. A real data example is provided to further demonstrate the usage of the method.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".