What is the benefit of regression with student-t residuals over OLS regression? Sometimes I see advice to fit regressions with student-t residuals rather than using OLS (which is equivalent to assuming normally distributed residuals) if the distribution of the residuals is heavy-tailed. However, since the OLS estimator is BLUE (by Gauss-Markov), it should have lower variance (and therefore MSE) than a regression that assumes student-t residuals fit via maximum likelihood. This is true even if the residuals truly are t-distributed.
In a simple simulation (see bottom for R code), OLS and t-regression are essentially equivalent with respect to out-of-sample MSE and both achieve correct coverage for CIs for the $\beta$ coefficient even though the true residuals follow a student-t distribution. If OLS performs equally for standard tasks such as prediction (as judged by MSE) or inference (as judged by coverage of CIs for model parameters), what are the advantages of fitting a regression assuming student-t errors? Shouldn't I benefit by estimating parameters assuming a correctly specified likelihood rather than a misspecified likelihood? Or is my simulation misleading?
An answer to this post suggests that prediction intervals will be wrong if one fails to use t-distributed errors. Is that really the only benefit?
Here's the simulation code:
library(hett) # for fitting t-based regressions

get_regression_function <- function(beta) {
  reg_function <- function(x){
    beta[1] + beta[2] * x
  }
  return(reg_function)
}
get_t_prediction <- function(df, model) {
  t_beta_hat <- model$loc.fit$coefficients
  design_mat <- df$x
  intercept <- rep(1, length(df$x))
  design_mat <- cbind(intercept, design_mat)                 
  pred <- design_mat %*% as.matrix(t_beta_hat)
  return(pred)
}

get_ols_ci_coverage <- function(ols_fit, par_name, true_theta) {
  CI_mat <- confint(ols_fit)
  lw <- CI_mat[par_name, '2.5 %']
  up <- CI_mat[par_name, '97.5 %']
  cover_beta_1_ols <- (lw <= true_theta) & (true_theta <= up)
  return(cover_beta_1_ols)
}

get_t_ci_coverage <- function(t_fit, par_name, true_theta) {
  t_summary <- as.data.frame(summary(t_fit)$loc.summary$coefficients)
  t_pt_est <- t_summary[par_name, 'Estimate']
  t_se <- t_summary[par_name, 'Std. Error']
  t_ci <- t_pt_est + 1.96 * t_se * c(-1, 1)
  cover_t <- (t_ci[1] <= true_theta) &
    (true_theta <= t_ci[2])
  return(cover_t)
}

## simulation
true_beta_0 = 0.5
true_beta_1 = 1.5
reg_function <- get_regression_function(
  beta = c(true_beta_0, true_beta_1))

ssr_ols <- c()
ssr_t <- c()
ols_ci_coverage <- c()
t_ci_coverage <- c()

num_sims <- 10000
set.seed(1)
for (i in 1:num_sims){
  # Generate a dataset of size N
  N = 10000
  x <- rnorm(n = N, mean = 0, sd = 1)
  errors <- rt(N, df = 3)
  y_mean <- reg_function(x = x)
  y <- y_mean + errors
  df <- data.frame(y = y, x = x)
  df_train <- df[1:(N/2), ]
  df_test <- df[(N/2 + 1):N, ]
  
  # fit linear models
  OLS_fit <- lm(y ~ x, data = df_train)
  t_fit <- tlm(y ~ x,
               data = df_train)
  
  # generate test set predictions
  lm_pred <- predict(OLS_fit, newdata = df_test)
  t_pred <- get_t_prediction(
    df = df_test, model = t_fit)
  
  # test residuals
  lm_res <- lm_pred - df_test$y
  t_res <- t_pred - df_test$y
  
  # MSE -- test set
  ssr_ols[i] <- mean(lm_res^2)
  ssr_t[i] <- mean(t_res^2)
  
  # CI coverage for beta1
  ols_ci_coverage[i] <- get_ols_ci_coverage(
    ols_fit = OLS_fit, par_name = 'x', true_theta = true_beta_1)
  t_ci_coverage[i] <- get_t_ci_coverage(
    t_fit = t_fit, par_name = 'x', true_theta = true_beta_1)
}

mean(ssr_ols)
mean(ssr_t)
mean(ols_ci_coverage)
mean(t_ci_coverage)


The weakness of the OLS regression is that it is extremely sensitive to outliers, (the influence of the outlying points on the loss function grows as the square of their distance from the regression line). One of the possible alternatives for making regression more robust (i.e., less sensitive to the outliers, see Robust regression) is using loss functions that give less weight to the outlying points, such as Huber loss or Tukey loss (see also M-estimator).
Student-t distribution with its long tails is also a potential candidate with distinct advantages and disadvantages:

*

*It is more difficult to work with analytically than Huber or Tukey loss functions

*It is a real probability distribution (unlike Huber and Tukey, which are somewhat ad-hoc choices), and smoothly fits, e.g., with Bayesian methods.

