Pitman closeness, monotonicity and consistency of best linear unbiased and invariant estimators for exponential distribution under Type II censoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparisons of best linear unbiased estimators with some other prominent estimators have been carried out over the last 50 years since the ground breaking work of Lloyd [E.H. Lloyd, Least squares estimation of location and scale parameters using order statistics, Biometrika 39 (1952), pp. 88–95]. These comparisons have been made under many different criteria across different parametric families of distributions. A noteworthy one is by Nagaraja [H.N. Nagaraja, Comparison of estimators and predictors from two-parameter exponential distribution, Sankhyā Ser. B 48 (1986), pp. 10–18], who made a comparison of best linear unbiased (BLUE) and best linear invariant (BLIE) estimators in the case of exponential distribution. In this paper, continuing along the same lines by assuming a Type II right censored sample from a scaled-exponential distribution, we first compare BLUE and BLIE of the exponential mean parameter in terms of Pitman closeness (nearness) criterion. We show that the BLUE is always Pitman closer than the BLIE. Next, we introduce the notions of Pitman monotonicity and Pitman consistency, and then establish that both BLUE and BLIE possess these two properties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".