MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057741899 · doi:10.1214/09-ejs526

Estimation of a discrete monotone distribution

2009· article· en· W2057741899 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Journal of Statistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsEstimatorMonotone polygonConsistent estimatorApplied mathematicsStatisticsEfficient estimatorDistribution (mathematics)Asymptotic distributionEmpirical distribution functionTrimmed estimatorMinimum-variance unbiased estimatorCombinatoricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study and compare three estimators of a discrete monotone distribution: (a) the (raw) empirical estimator; (b) the "method of rearrangements" estimator; and (c) the maximum likelihood estimator. We show that the maximum likelihood estimator strictly dominates both the rearrangement and empirical estimators in cases when the distribution has intervals of constancy. For example, when the distribution is uniform on {0, … , y}, the asymptotic risk of the method of rearrangements estimator (in squared ℓ(2) norm) is y/(y + 1), while the asymptotic risk of the MLE is of order (log y)/(y + 1). For strictly decreasing distributions, the estimators are asymptotically equivalent.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.326 · 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