Methodological study demonstrates accurate conditional density estimation in positive-valued data, indicating enhanced predictive reliability for deep probabilistic regression.
We introduce a mathematically consistent Gamma–Lindley q -distribution and develop a support-aware deep probabilistic regression framework for positive-valued responses. The proposed model is constructed within Jackson q -calculus and uses the q -gamma function to obtain an explicit normalization mechanism together with closed-form expressions for raw moments, the conditional mean, and the conditional variance. We establish positivity, exact normalization, and convergence to the classical admissible Gamma–Lindley distribution as \(q → 1^-\) . Building on these analytic results, we embed the proposed distribution into a neural conditional density estimator whose parameters depend on the covariates through constraint-preserving output maps. In particular, the model learns the conditional support endpoint explicitly, which guarantees likelihood feasibility and stabilizes training under finite q -support. Numerical experiments validate the q -gamma Jackson-integral representation, normalization and moment identities, sampling on the Jackson grid, and the classical-limit behavior. In synthetic probabilistic-regression experiments, the identifiable version of the proposed model accurately recovers the latent parameter functions while providing sharper predictive intervals and substantially improved conditional-mean estimation compared with a baseline likelihood-only model. We further benchmark the proposed estimator against Gamma, Weibull, log-normal and generalized-gamma deep distributional-regression baselines on both synthetic data and a real positive-valued dataset, where it attains competitive predictive accuracy together with well-covered predictive intervals. These results show that the Gamma–Lindley q -distribution provides a theoretically grounded and practically effective foundation for deep probabilistic regression of positive data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Imed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: