MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1486234516 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1358-1_27

Variable Kernel Estimates: on the Impossibility of Tuning the Parameters

2000· book-chapter· en· W1486234516 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBirkhäuser Boston eBooks · 2000
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBandwidth (computing)Monotonic functionMathematicsConvexityKernel density estimationCounterexampleSmoothnessVariable (mathematics)Applied mathematicsKernel (algebra)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceMathematical analysisStatisticsDiscrete mathematicsEstimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the standard kernel density estimate, it is known that one can tune the bandwidth such that the expected Li error is within a constant factor of the optimal L1 error (obtained when one is allowed to choose the bandwidth with knowledge of the density). In this paper, we pose the same problem for variable bandwidth kernel estimates where the bandwidths are allowed to depend upon the location. We show in particular that for positive kernels on the real line, for any data-based bandwidth, there exists a density for which the ratio of expected L1 error over optimal L1 error tends to infinity. Thus, the problem of tuning the variable bandwidth in an optimal manner is “too hard”. Moreover, from the class of counterexamples exhibited in the paper, it appears that placing conditions on the densities (monotonicity, convexity, smoothness) does not help.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it