Penalty Strategies in Semiparametric Regression Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study includes a comprehensive evaluation of six penalty estimation strategies for partially linear models (PLRMs), focusing on their performance in the presence of multicollinearity and their ability to handle both parametric and nonparametric components. The methods under consideration include Ridge regression, Lasso, Adaptive Lasso (aLasso), smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD), ElasticNet, and minimax concave penalty (MCP). In addition to these established methods, we also incorporate Stein-type shrinkage estimation techniques that are standard and positive shrinkage and assess their effectiveness in this context. To estimate the PLRMs, we consider a kernel smoothing technique grounded in penalized least squares. Our investigation involves a theoretical analysis of the estimators’ asymptotic properties and a detailed simulation study designed to compare their performance under a variety of conditions, including different sample sizes, numbers of predictors, and levels of multicollinearity. The simulation results reveal that aLasso and shrinkage estimators, particularly the positive shrinkage estimator, consistently outperform the other methods in terms of Mean Squared Error (MSE) relative efficiencies (RE), especially when the sample size is small and multicollinearity is high. Furthermore, we present a real data analysis using the Hitters dataset to demonstrate the applicability of these methods in a practical setting. The results of the real data analysis align with the simulation findings, highlighting the superior predictive accuracy of aLasso and the shrinkage estimators in the presence of multicollinearity. The findings of this study offer valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of these penalty and shrinkage strategies, guiding their application in future research and practice involving semiparametric regression.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".