Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Semiparametric Wavelet-based JPEG IV Estimator for endogenously truncated data

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A wavelet-based IV estimator removes both truncation and endogeneity bias.

desk verdict Load-bearing error in Theorem 1 undercuts the statistical claim, but the Monte Carlo and the wavelet lifting scheme are real enough to warrant referee attention. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02166 v1 pith:RVP4KUCI submitted 2019-08-06 stat.ME cs.CVcs.LGecon.EMstat.ML

Nir Billfeld , Moshe Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEcs.CVcs.LGecon.EMstat.ML
keywords endogenoustruncationinstrumentalvariablesemiparametricestimationJPEGwaveletbiorthogonalliftingschemeproximalgradientdescentsampleselection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that the conventional instrumental-variable estimator is no longer valid when the sample is endogenously truncated, and that a semiparametric wavelet-based 'JPEG IV' estimator corrects both the truncation bias and the bias from endogenous covariates. The proof has two parts: a decomposition showing the truncated substantive equation splits into a linear part, an unknown selection-bias function, an endogeneity-bias term, and noise; and a matrix-free lifting-scheme implementation of the transposed inverse JPEG wavelet transform that makes the denoising computation feasible on irregular grids. If the claims hold, empirical researchers working with truncated samples or machine-learning training data with covariate shift would have an estimator that is bandwidth-free, distribution-free, and $\sqrt{n}$-consistent. Monte Carlo results across 2,000,000 distribution functions are presented as verification, while the conventional IV on truncated data shows bias that persists even at 10,000 observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the JPEG biorthogonal wavelet transform, the CDF 9/7 filter bank, expressed as a product of auxiliary matrices for shifting, rescaling, and smoothing with interpolation weights for irregular grids. The paper's new step is equation (49), an analytic expression for the transpose of the inverse transform, $(\Psi_I^{(t)})^T$, obtained by reversing and transposing each lifting step instead of building the full matrix; Algorithms 4 and 6 implement this transposed-inverse filter. This lets the proximal gradient update in equation (29) compute $\Psi_I^T(u-\Psi_I\delta)$ exactly at each iteration, enabling group-wise MCP-thresholded denoising with resolution-dependent penalties, and a reference-free two-fold cross-validation criterion selects the thresholds.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 4 on random irregular grids, including odd-length and boundary cases, and compare its output to the direct matrix product $(\Psi_I^{(t)})^T u$ from equations (49)-(50); any relative difference above machine precision shows the lifting scheme is not the exact transpose and the proximal update is not valid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in an endogenously truncated sample selection model with an endogenous covariate, the substantive equation decomposes into a linear parametric part, a selection-bias term $M_1(w_i^T\gamma)$, an endogeneity-bias term $E[\xi_{1i}|x_i]$, and white noise. The conventional IV estimator is inconsistent because the selection indicator makes the instrument $z$ and the disturbance $\xi_1$ conditionally dependent through the covariates $w$, so $E[z\xi_1|s]\neq E[z|s]E[\xi_1|s]$. The paper proves that removing the bias term from the residual restores orthogonality, and constructs a semiparametric estimator that estimates the unknown bias functions $M_1(\cdot)$ and $M_2(\cdot)$ by wavelet denoising. The resulting JPEG IV estimator is claimed to correct both biases simultaneously and to be $\sqrt{n}$-consistent, with the conventional IV nested as the special case where all detail wavelet coefficients are zero.

Load-bearing premise

The whole computational scheme rests on the assertion that the lifting steps in Algorithms 4 and 6 compute exactly the transpose of the inverse JPEG wavelet transform on irregular grids, but the paper supplies no proof that these steps equal the matrix product in equation (49).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Conventional IV should not be used on endogenously truncated samples: the paper's Monte Carlo results show estimates for the endogenous covariate can be roughly a tenth of the true value and remain biased at large sample sizes.
  • Applying JPEG IV to truncated data reproduces full-sample IV performance once the sample has a few thousand observations.
  • The estimator achieves the standard $\sqrt{n}$ convergence rate without requiring a bandwidth parameter or normality assumptions on the disturbances.
  • Because the denoising is group-wise rather than element-wise, the procedure accounts for dependence among wavelet coefficients of the same resolution level.
  • The method extends to irregularly spaced data through interpolation weights embedded in the wavelet filters.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The matrix-free transposed-inverse lifting construction is not tied to the JPEG 9/7 filter bank; the same reversal-and-transpose logic could in principle be applied to other biorthogonal filter banks, making the proximal-denoising estimation strategy generalizable.
  • The paper establishes consistency through Monte Carlo convergence rates rather than an asymptotic proof; a formal distributional theory for the two-step estimator with estimated $\gamma$ and data-adaptive thresholds would be the natural next step.
  • The reference-free two-fold cross-validation threshold rule could be lifted from this paper and used in other truncated-data settings where the complete distribution is unobservable, such as covariate shift in machine-learning training data.
  • A direct comparison against kernel-based semiparametric selection estimators on the same data-generating process would quantify the practical gain from avoiding bandwidth selection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a semiparametric instrumental variable estimator for endogenously truncated samples. The method combines a biorthogonal wavelet (JPEG 2000-style) denoising step, an analytic transposed-inverse lifting scheme, and a two-step estimation procedure intended to correct for both endogenous covariates and endogenous truncation. The authors report Monte Carlo simulations with non-normal disturbances, claiming recovery of the true parameters for sample sizes above 2,000 and √n consistency.

Significance. The problem addressed—correcting for both endogeneity of covariates and sample selection in a truncated sample—is important and widely relevant. The paper is ambitious in trying to avoid distributional assumptions and to provide a computationally efficient wavelet implementation. The Monte Carlo design with non-Gaussian, non-symmetric disturbances is a genuine strength. However, the central theoretical decomposition in Theorem 1 is invalid because conditioning on selection is dropped in the derivation of equations (8)–(10). Since the two-step estimator (51)–(52) is built on this decomposition, the statistical target of the estimator is not established. In addition, the claimed exactness of the transposed-inverse lifting scheme is asserted without proof, and the 2,000,000 distribution functions mentioned in the abstract are not substantiated by the described DGP. The empirical evidence cannot compensate for these theoretical gaps.

major comments (4)
  1. [II-B, Eqs. (8)–(10)] The passage from equation (8) to equation (9) drops the conditioning on y2i=1 in the first two terms: E{E[x_i^T β | x_i] | y2i=1} is replaced by E[x_i^T β | x_i], and E{E[ξ_1i | x_i] | y2i=1} is replaced by E[ξ_1i | x_i]. This is not an identity; it would require x_i to be independent of selection, which is precisely the endogenous truncation that the paper excludes. Consequently, equation (10) is not a valid partially linear regression model with an additive selection-bias term, and the estimating equations (51)–(52) are not implied by the model. This is a load-bearing error: the statistical target of the estimator is not established.
  2. [IV-E, Algorithm 4, Eq. (49)] The paper asserts that Algorithm 4 together with the transposed-inverse filter (Algorithm 6) computes the exact transpose of the inverse JPEG transform Ψ_I^T u in (49), but no proof of equivalence between the lifting operations and the matrix product is supplied. If this equivalence fails for any grid or boundary case, the proximal update in (29) is not a valid step for the objective in (25), so the computational foundation of the estimator, which the abstract calls the main contribution, is unverified.
  3. [V-A, DGP (53)] The abstract and Section V claim validation with 2,000,000 different distribution functions, but the DGP described in (53) is a single mixture with fixed parameters (μ, σ_a, σ_b, φ, σ_v) = (4, 2.5, 1.5, 2, 1). No mechanism for varying the marginal distributions across observations is provided. The Monte Carlo evidence therefore does not substantiate the stated breadth of validation, and the claim is not reproducible from the manuscript.
  4. [V-B, Table 3] The δ consistency measure is used to conclude that the JPEG IV estimator is √n consistent, but δ is only an empirical estimate of the rate at which Monte Carlo standard deviations decline for one parameter (β1) across a few sample sizes. The reported values range from 0.42 to 0.61, which is not an unambiguous confirmation of the √n rate, and no formal theorem establishing consistency or asymptotic normality is proved. The claim of √n consistency is therefore not supported by theory.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II-C] The text contains repeated typos: 'Assumtption 1' and 'Assumtption 2' should read 'Assumption 1' and 'Assumption 2'.
  2. [II-G] The estimation procedures in (51) and (52) do not include the selection-index parameter γ, so the paper never explains how γ is estimated or whether it is assumed known; this is a significant omission in a semiparametric single-index model.
  3. [II-C, Theorem 3] Theorem 3 states only conditions (i) and (ii), but its proof uses conditional independence of z and ξ1 given w and s (condition (iii) of Theorem 2) when writing E[z ξ1 | w, s] = E[z | w, s] E[ξ1 | w, s]; the theorem statement should include that assumption.
  4. [III-2] The sentence 'we select both the thresholding (tuning) parameter as well as the penalty function using a reference-free criterion function' is repeated or incomplete: the criterion in (34) selects λ_j and γ_j, but the mechanics of the two-fold cross-validation over the penalty shape parameter are not described.
  5. [V-A] The text says each observation is generated from a unique mixture of distribution functions, but the DGP in (53) fixes the mixture weights and parameters; the description is internally inconsistent.
  6. [V-B, Table 3] The δ consistency measure is reported only for β1, not for β2, and the note in the table does not define how the standard deviations σ1 and σ2 are paired across sample sizes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the estimator is validated by Monte Carlo against known parameters, and the statistical derivations, while containing gaps, do not reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central statistical target is the coefficient β in the truncated substantive equation. The two-step estimating equations (51)-(52) are motivated by the decomposition in Theorem 1, but the decomposition is not assumed to equal the estimator's output; it is an algebraic derivation from the model. Even if equation (9) involves a questionable simplification of conditional expectations, that is a mathematical validity concern, not circularity. The bias terms M1(·) and M2(·) are estimated nonparametrically from residuals and included as controls, which is a standard profile/control-function construction; the tuning parameters λ_j, γ_j are chosen by the reference-free two-fold cross-validation criterion (34), which is ordinary data-driven calibration rather than a hidden fit of the target parameters. The transposed-inverse wavelet algorithm in Algorithm 4/6 is asserted to equal the matrix transpose in (49), but no equivalence proof is supplied; a missing proof is a completeness gap, not a circular reduction. The Monte Carlo validation measures estimates against the true DGP parameters (β1=1, β2=1.25, δ1=0.5, δ2=1), so the accuracy claims are externally checked rather than derived from fitted outputs. The only self-citation (reference [2]) is used as background motivation about covariate shift and does not support any theorem, uniqueness claim, or estimator property, so it is not load-bearing. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction step, or author-imported uniqueness result was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard IV conditions and single-index selection assumption, plus several assumptions specific to this paper: the sparsity of the bias functions in the JPEG wavelet basis, the exactness of the new lifting schemes, the validity of the reference-free threshold choice, and the convergence of the proximal algorithm. The first two are domain assumptions; the last three are asserted without proof.

free parameters (3)
  • Threshold parameters lambda_j and penalty-shape parameters gamma_j per resolution level = selected by two-fold cross-validation for each dataset
    Equation (34) chooses lambda_j and gamma_j to minimize the reference-free criterion; the denoising step (29) depends on these values, so the estimator's bias correction is partly determined by data-driven thresholds.
  • Proximal step-size parameter alpha = initialized to 1, increased by factor eta=1.2 during the line search
    Algorithm 5 uses alpha in the update rule (29) and adjusts it to ensure objective decrease; the exact values are algorithmically chosen rather than derived.
  • Convergence tolerance tau = 10^-16
    Equation (30) sets the stopping rule; the paper states the value is arbitrary.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The instrument z is valid in the population: E[z*xi1]=0 and the exclusion restriction holds.
    Stated as basic IV requirements at the start of Section II.
  • domain assumption E[xi1|s=s,w=w]=M(w'gamma) with M unknown.
    Condition (ii) in Theorems 2 and 3; standard single-index sample-selection assumption.
  • domain assumption Assumptions 1 and 2: E[z|w=w]=G(w) and conditioning on w and a stochastic function of w leaves the conditional expectation of z unchanged.
    Section II-C, Assumtption 1 and Assumtption 2 (original spelling).
  • domain assumption The bias functions M1 and M2 are sparse in the CDF 9/7 biorthogonal wavelet basis, so thresholding removes noise without removing the bias structure.
    Section III-IV relies on wavelet sparsity for denoising; no explicit smoothness class or approximation error bound is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The lifting schemes in Algorithms 1-4 compute the exact forward, inverse, and transposed-inverse JPEG transforms for irregular grids, including boundary handling.
    Asserted in Section IV-E; no proof of equivalence to the matrix formulas (42)-(49) is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-fold cross-validation criterion (34) selects thresholds that lead to consistent estimation of M1 and M2.
    No asymptotic analysis of the threshold selection is given; the paper relies on the heuristic from Nason (1996).
  • ad hoc to paper The proximal gradient algorithm with the nonconvex MCP penalty converges to an appropriate stationary point.
    Algorithm 5 uses a numerical convergence check with maxiter and tolerance; no convergence theorem is stated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semiparametric Wavelet-based JPEG IV Estimator for endogenously truncated data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVP4KUCI

@misc{pith2026190802166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semiparametric Wavelet-based JPEG IV Estimator for endogenously truncated data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVP4KUCI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02166}
}
read the original abstract

A new and an enriched JPEG algorithm is provided for identifying redundancies in a sequence of irregular noisy data points which also accommodates a reference-free criterion function. Our main contribution is by formulating analytically (instead of approximating) the inverse of the transpose of JPEGwavelet transform without involving matrices which are computationally cumbersome. The algorithm is suitable for the widely-spread situations where the original data distribution is unobservable such as in cases where there is deficient representation of the entire population in the training data (in machine learning) and thus the covariate shift assumption is violated. The proposed estimator corrects for both biases, the one generated by endogenous truncation and the one generated by endogenous covariates. Results from utilizing 2,000,000 different distribution functions verify the applicability and high accuracy of our procedure to cases in which the disturbances are neither jointly nor marginally normally distributed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Semiparametric causality tests using the policy propensity score,

    J. D. Angrist and G. M. Kuersteiner, “Semiparametric causality tests using the policy propensity score,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Tech. Rep., 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Semiparametric correction for endogenous trun- cation bias with vox populi-based participation decision,

    N. Billfeld and M. Kim, “Semiparametric correction for endogenous trun- cation bias with vox populi-based participation decision,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 12 114–12 132, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Sample selection bias as a specification error,

    J. J. Heckman, “Sample selection bias as a specification error,” Economet- rica: Journal of the econometric society, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 153–161, 1979

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    Two-step series estimation of sample selection models,

    W. K. Newey, “Two-step series estimation of sample selection models,” The Econometrics Journal, vol. 12, no. s1, pp. S217–S229, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Semiparametric estimation of censored selection models,

    J. L. Powell, “Semiparametric estimation of censored selection models,” in Nonlinear Statistical Modeling: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Inter- national Symposium in Economic Theory and Econometrics: Essays in Honor of Takeshi Amemiya, vol. 165. Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 96

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Sar speckle reduction using wavelet denoising and markov random field modeling,

    H. Xie, L. E. Pierce, and F. T. Ulaby, “Sar speckle reduction using wavelet denoising and markov random field modeling,” IEEE Transactions on geoscience and remote sensing, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 2196–2212, 2002

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Compression approaches for the regularized solutions of linear systems from large-scale inverse problems,

    S. V oronin, D. Mikesell, and G. Nolet, “Compression approaches for the regularized solutions of linear systems from large-scale inverse problems,” GEM-International Journal on Geomathematics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 251–294, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Interpolation methods for nonlinear wavelet regression with irregularly spaced design,

    P. Hall, B. A. Turlach et al., “Interpolation methods for nonlinear wavelet regression with irregularly spaced design,” The Annals of Statistics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1912–1925, 1997

    work page 1912

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Wavelet shrinkage for unequally spaced data,

    S. Sardy, D. B. Percival, A. G. Bruce, H.-Y . Gao, and W. Stuetzle, “Wavelet shrinkage for unequally spaced data,” Statistics and Computing, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 65–75, 1999

    1999

  2. [10]

    Full reference and reduced reference metrics for image quality assessment,

    M. Carnec, P. Le Callet, and D. Barba, “Full reference and reduced reference metrics for image quality assessment,” in Signal Processing and Its Applications, 2003. Proceedings. Seventh International Symposium on, vol. 1. IEEE, 2003, pp. 477–480

    2003

  3. [11]

    Full-reference and reduced-reference quality metrics based on sift,

    J. Farah, M.-R. Hojeij, J. Chrabieh, and F. Dufaux, “Full-reference and reduced-reference quality metrics based on sift,” in Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2014 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 161–165

    2014

  4. [12]

    Biorthogonal bases of compactly supported wavelets,

    A. Cohen, I. Daubechies, and J.-C. Feauveau, “Biorthogonal bases of compactly supported wavelets,” Communications on pure and applied mathematics, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 485–560, 1992

    1992

  5. [13]

    Semiparametric least squares (sls) and weighted sls estima- tion of single-index models,

    H. Ichimura, “Semiparametric least squares (sls) and weighted sls estima- tion of single-index models,” Journal of Econometrics, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 71–120, 1993

    1993

  6. [14]

    Nonparametric matching and efficient estima- tors of homothetically separable functions,

    A. Lewbel and O. Linton, “Nonparametric matching and efficient estima- tors of homothetically separable functions,” Econometrica, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 1209–1227, 2007

    2007

  7. [15]

    A tutorial on modern lossy wavelet image compression: foundations of jpeg 2000,

    B. E. Usevitch, “A tutorial on modern lossy wavelet image compression: foundations of jpeg 2000,” IEEE signal processing magazine, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 22–35, 2001

    2000

  8. [16]

    Root-n-consistent semiparametric regression,

    P. M. Robinson, “Root-n-consistent semiparametric regression,” Econo- metrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 931–954, 1988

    1988

  9. [17]

    Semiparametric least squares estimation of multiple index models: single equation estimation,

    H. Ichimura and L. F. Lee, “Semiparametric least squares estimation of multiple index models: single equation estimation,” in Nonparametric and semiparametric methods in econometrics and statistics: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium in Economic Theory and Econom...

    1991

  10. [18]

    A simple ordered data estimator for inverse density weighted expectations,

    A. Lewbel and S. M. Schennach, “A simple ordered data estimator for inverse density weighted expectations,” Journal of Econometrics, vol. 136, no. 1, pp. 189–211, 2007

    2007

  11. [19]

    Williams, Probability with martingales

    D. Williams, Probability with martingales. Cambridge university press, 1991

    1991

  12. [20]

    Zur theorie der orthogonalen funktionensysteme,

    A. Haar, “Zur theorie der orthogonalen funktionensysteme,” Mathematis- che Annalen, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 331–371, 1910

    1910

  13. [21]

    Second-generation wavelet denoising methods for irregularly spaced data in two dimensions,

    V . Delouille, M. Jansen, and R. von Sachs, “Second-generation wavelet denoising methods for irregularly spaced data in two dimensions,” Signal Processing, vol. 86, no. 7, pp. 1435–1450, 2006

    2006

  14. [22]

    Stabilised wavelet transforms for non-equispaced data smoothing,

    E. Vanraes, M. Jansen, and A. Bultheel, “Stabilised wavelet transforms for non-equispaced data smoothing,” Signal Processing, vol. 82, no. 12, pp. 1979–1990, 2002

    1979

  15. [23]

    Wavelets in statistics: beyond the standard assump- tions,

    B. W. Silverman, “Wavelets in statistics: beyond the standard assump- tions,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 357, no. 1760, pp. 2459–2473, 1999

    1999

  16. [24]

    Factoring wavelet transforms into lifting steps,

    I. Daubechies and W. Sweldens, “Factoring wavelet transforms into lifting steps,” Journal of Fourier analysis and applications, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 247– 269, 1998. 17

    1998

  17. [25]

    Empirical bayes selection of wavelet thresholds,

    I. M. Johnstone and B. W. Silverman, “Empirical bayes selection of wavelet thresholds,” Annals of Statistics, pp. 1700–1752, 2005

    2005

  18. [26]

    Needles and straw in haystacks: Empirical bayes estimates of possibly sparse sequences,

    I. M. Johnstone, B. W. Silverman et al., “Needles and straw in haystacks: Empirical bayes estimates of possibly sparse sequences,” The Annals of Statistics, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1594–1649, 2004

    2004

  19. [27]

    Smooth design-adapted wavelets for nonparametric stochastic regression,

    V . Delouille, J. Simoens, and R. von Sachs, “Smooth design-adapted wavelets for nonparametric stochastic regression,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 99, no. 467, pp. 643–658, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Ten lectures on wavelets, vol. 61 of cbms-nsf regional conference series in applied mathematics,

    I. Daubechies, “Ten lectures on wavelets, vol. 61 of cbms-nsf regional conference series in applied mathematics,” 1992

    1992

  21. [29]

    Interpolating wavelets and difference wavelets,

    I.-L. Chern et al., “Interpolating wavelets and difference wavelets,” in Joint Australian-Taiwanese Workshop on Analysis and Applications. Centre for Mathematics and its Applications, Mathematical Sciences Institute, The Australian National University, 1999, pp. 133–147

    1999

  22. [30]

    A new class of biorthogonal wavelet systems for image transform coding,

    D. Wei, J. Tian, R. Wells, and C. S. Burrus, “A new class of biorthogonal wavelet systems for image transform coding,” IEEE Transactions on Image processing, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 1000–1013, 1998

    1998

  23. [31]

    Riesz bases and multiresolution analyses,

    R. Zalik, “Riesz bases and multiresolution analyses,” Applied and Com- putational Harmonic Analysis, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 315–331, 1999

    1999

  24. [32]

    Wavelet-galerkin methods for ill-posed prob- lems,

    V . Dicken and P. Maass, “Wavelet-galerkin methods for ill-posed prob- lems,” Journal of Inverse and Ill-Posed Problems, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 203– 222, 1996

    1996

  25. [33]

    Wavelet decomposition approaches to statistical inverse problems,

    F. u. Abramovich and B. Silverman, “Wavelet decomposition approaches to statistical inverse problems,” Biometrika, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 115–129, 1998

    1998

  26. [34]

    Adaptive nonparametric instrumental variables estima- tion: Empirical choice of the regularization parameter,

    J. L. Horowitz, “Adaptive nonparametric instrumental variables estima- tion: Empirical choice of the regularization parameter,” Journal of Econo- metrics, vol. 180, no. 2, pp. 158–173, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    X. He, E. Hua, Y . Lin, and X. Liu, Computer, Informatics, Cybernetics and Applications: Proceedings of the CICA 2011. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011, vol. 107

    2011

  28. [36]

    Wavelet shrinkage using adaptive structured sparsity constraints,

    D. Tomassi, D. Milone, and J. D. Nelson, “Wavelet shrinkage using adaptive structured sparsity constraints,” Signal Processing, vol. 106, pp. 73–87, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax concave penalty,

    C.-H. Zhang et al., “Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax concave penalty,” The Annals of statistics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 894–942, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    Coordinate descent algorithms for nonconvex penalized regression, with applications to biological feature selection,

    P. Breheny and J. Huang, “Coordinate descent algorithms for nonconvex penalized regression, with applications to biological feature selection,” The annals of applied statistics, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 232, 2011

    2011

  31. [39]

    Sparse nonlinear regression: Parameter estimation and asymptotic inference,

    Z. Yang, Z. Wang, H. Liu, Y . C. Eldar, and T. Zhang, “Sparse nonlinear regression: Parameter estimation and asymptotic inference,” 2015, arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.04514

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage,

    D. L. Donoho and J. M. Johnstone, “Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage,” biometrika, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 425–455, 1994

    1994

  33. [41]

    Nason, Wavelet methods in statistics with R

    G. Nason, Wavelet methods in statistics with R. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

    2010

  34. [42]

    Wavelet shrinkage using cross-validation,

    G. P. Nason, “Wavelet shrinkage using cross-validation,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), pp. 463–479, 1996

    1996

  35. [43]

    Schelkens, A

    P. Schelkens, A. Skodras, and T. Ebrahimi, The JPEG 2000 suite. John Wiley & Sons, 2009, vol. 15

    2000

  36. [44]

    Estimation for partially linear single-index instrumental variables models,

    Y . Zhou, Y . Yang, J. Han, and P. Zhao, “Estimation for partially linear single-index instrumental variables models,” Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 3629–3642, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    Sklar, Fonctions de répartition à n dimensions et leurs marges

    M. Sklar, Fonctions de répartition à n dimensions et leurs marges. Uni- versité Paris 8, 1959

    1959

  38. [46]

    Multivariate archimedean copulas, d- monotone functions and âˇD¸ S1-norm symmetric distributions,

    A. J. McNeil and J. Nešlehová, “Multivariate archimedean copulas, d- monotone functions and âˇD¸ S1-norm symmetric distributions,” The Annals of Statistics, pp. 3059–3097, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    Families of multivariate distributions,

    A. W. Marshall and I. Olkin, “Families of multivariate distributions,” Journal of the American statistical association, vol. 83, no. 403, pp. 834– 841, 1988

    1988

  40. [48]

    Sampling archimedean copulas,

    M. Hofert, “Sampling archimedean copulas,” Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 5163–5174, 2008

    2008

  41. [49]

    A simple and robust estimator for linear regression models with strictly exogenous instruments,

    J. C. Escanciano, “A simple and robust estimator for linear regression models with strictly exogenous instruments,” The Econometrics Journal, 2017. Dr. NIR BILLFELD is a researcher at the univer- sity of Haifa, Israel. He received the B.A. in eco- nomics and statistics from th...

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.