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

Estimation of a discrete monotone distribution

2009· article· en· W2057741899 on OpenAlexafffund
Hanna Jankowski, Jon A. Wellner

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.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207