On continuous distribution functions, minimax and best invariant estimators, and integrated balanced loss functions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We consider the problem of estimating a continuous distribution function F , as well as meaningful functions under a large class of loss functions. We obtain best invariant estimators and establish their minimaxity for Hölder continuous ’s and strict bowl‐shaped losses with a bounded derivative. We also introduce and motivate the use of integrated balanced loss functions which combine the criteria of an integrated distance between a decision d and , with the proximity of d from a target estimator . Moreover, we show how the risk analysis of procedures under such an integrated balanced loss relates to a dual risk analysis under an “unbalanced” loss, and we derive best invariant estimators, minimax estimators, risk comparisons, dominance and inadmissibility results. Finally, we expand on various illustrations and applications relative to maxima‐nomination sampling, median‐nomination sampling, and a case study related to bilirubin levels in the blood of babies suffering from jaundice. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 42: 470–486; 2014 © 2014 Statistical Society of 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it