跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确以纵向重复观测为对象,研究时变回归系数及其推断,与面板数据方法直接相关。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Liugen Xue
Lixing Zhu

纵向数据变系数模型的经验似然推断

研究问题
如何对纵向数据中的时变系数构造经验似然置信区域,并处理局部平滑偏差,减少对欠平滑和方差代入估计的依赖?
方法与思路
作者研究局部经验似然及均值校正、残差调整两种比率,分析最大经验似然估计,并构造部分参数区间和同时置信带。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,原始比率在欠平滑下具有标准卡方极限,两种校正无需欠平滑;估计量与加权最小二乘渐近等价且渐近正态。
阅读关注点
应核对个体内相关如何进入经验似然、两种偏差校正的构造,以及点态置信区域、同时置信带和 bootstrap 的条件差异。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;依赖结构、带宽条件及覆盖率结果未说明,不能将卡方极限理解为无条件保证。

原文摘要

In this article local empirical likelihood-based inference for a varying coefficient model with longitudinal data is investigated. First, we show that the naive empirical likelihood ratio is asymptotically standard chi-squared when undersmoothing is employed. The ratio is self-scale invariant and the plug-in estimate of the limiting variance is not needed. Second, to enhance the performance of the ratio, mean-corrected and residual-adjusted empirical likelihood ratios are recommended. The merit of these two bias corrections is that without undersmoothing, both also have standard chi-squared limits. Third, a maximum empirical likelihood estimator (MELE) of the time-varying coefficient is defined, the asymptotic equivalence to the weighted least-squares estimator (WLSE) is provided, and the asymptotic normality is shown. By the empirical likelihood ratios and the normal approximation of the MELE/WLSE, the confidence regions of the time-varying coefficients are constructed. Fourth, when some components are of particular interest, we suggest using mean-corrected and residual-adjusted partial empirical likelihood ratios to construct the confidence regions/intervals. In addition, we also consider the construction of the simultaneous and bootstrap confidence bands. A simulation study is undertaken to compare the empirical likelihood, the normal approximation, and the bootstrap methods in terms of coverage accuracies and average areas/widths of confidence regions/bands. An example in epidemiology is used for illustration.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文