MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503786442

Maximum likelihood estimation and confidence bands for a discrete log-concave distribution

2011· article· en· W1503786442 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fadoua Balabdaoui, Hanna Jankowski, Kaspar Rufibach

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPointwiseMathematicsConfidence intervalEstimatorConfidence and prediction bandsStatisticsConfidence distributionLikelihood functionNonparametric statisticsMaximum likelihoodAsymptotic analysisConcave functionCDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalDistribution (mathematics)Coverage probabilityMathematical analysisGeometryRegular polygon
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The assumption of log-concavity is a flexible and appealing nonparametric shape constraint in distribution modelling. In this work, we study the log-concave maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of a probability mass function (pmf). We show that the MLE is strongly consistent and derive its pointwise asymptotic theory under both the well- and misspecified setting. Our asymptotic results are used to calculate confidence intervals for the true log-concave pmf. Both the MLE and the associated confidence intervals may be easily computed using the R package logcondiscr. We illustrate our theoretical results using recent data from the H1N1 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.175
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.091 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207