Some Improvements of the Bootstrap over the Delta Method Probability Errors for Whittle Estimators
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
The purpose of this paper is to compare the coverage probability errors of the parametric bootstrap with that of the delta method for the covariance parameters of a regression model with auto-regressive fractionally integrated moving average (ARFIMA) errors. We consider the coverage probability errors of both confidence intervals (CIs) and tests based on the the plug-in Whittle maximum likelihood (PWML) estimators. We first show that, under some sets of conditions on the regression coefficients, the spectral density function, and the parameter values, the bounds on the coverage probability errors of the two-sided delta method and parametric bootstrap confidence intervals on the plug-in Whittle likelihood estimator or the covariance parameter are shown to be $O(n^{-1})$ and $o(n^{-3/2}\ln{n})$, respectively, where n is the sample size. Next, we show that those of the one-sided parametric bootstrap confidence intervals are shown to be $O(n^{-1/2})$ and $o(n^{-1}\ln{n})$, respectively. These results show that for both one-sided and two-sided confidence intervals and tests, the bootstrap provides a significant improvement over that of the delta 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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it