MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042263221 · doi:10.3103/s1066530710030051

Minimax revisited. I

2010· article· en· W2042263221 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

VenueMathematical Methods of Statistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimaxMathematicsUpper and lower boundsSample size determinationNonparametric statisticsApplied mathematicsBounded functionQuadratic equationGaussianMathematical optimizationStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the problem of estimating bounded normal means, some improved lower bounds for the minimax quadratic risk are presented. Since these bounds hold for any sample size, not merely asymptotically, we refer to them as “nonasymptotic”. First, we will review and compare some well-known bounds due to van Trees, Chentsov, Bhattacharyya, Kooks, Casella-Strawderman, Ibragimov-Khasminskii, and Donoho. The goal is to obtain a reliable nonasymptotic lower bound for the minimax risk applicable to any sample sizes and — through the well-known method of the hardest one-dimensional subfamily — to related nonparametric estimation problems. A combined lower bound will be proposed and compared to the numerically evaluated minimax risk. This comparison shows that the proposed global bound is about 97% accurate for any sample sizes. The results will be applied to nonparametric estimation of linear functionals in the white Gaussian noise in Part II.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.343 · 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