An adaptive model checking test for the functional linear model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have been devoted to the estimation and inference problems for functional linear models (FLM). However, few works focus on model checking problem that ensures the reliability of results. Limited tests in this area do not have tractable null distributions or asymptotic analysis under alternatives. Also, the functional predictor is usually assumed to be fully observed, which is impractical. To address these problems, we propose an adaptive model checking test for FLM. It combines regular moment-based and conditional moment-based tests, and achieves model adaptivity via the dimension of a residual-based subspace. The advantages of our test are manifold. First, it has a tractable chi-squared null distribution and higher powers under the alternatives than its components. Second, asymptotic properties under different underlying models are developed, including the unvisited local alternatives. Third, the test statistic is constructed upon finite grid points, which incorporates the discrete nature of collected data. We develop the desirable relationship between sample size and number of grid points to maintain the asymptotic properties. Besides, we provide a data-driven approach to estimate the dimension leading to model adaptivity, which is promising in sufficient dimension reduction. We conduct comprehensive numerical experiments to demonstrate the advantages the test inherits from its two simple components.
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 | 0.010 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".