Statistical Inference for the Difference Between the Best Treatment Mean and a Control Mean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many experiments, researchers are interested in comparing several treatment means with a control mean. When there are some treatments significantly better than the control, it is often of interest to evaluate the difference between the best treatment mean and the control mean and to identify the best treatment. In this article we derive lower confidence bounds for the aforementioned difference for the case that treatments are at least as effective as the control and for the case that no restriction is placed on the treatment means and the control mean. The evaluation of the lower confidence bound for the difference between the best treatment mean and the control mean is a concave programming problem subject to homogeneous linear inequality constraints. We propose two efficient computation algorithms and discuss the connection between our procedures and Gupta's subset selection procedure. We compare the expected lower confidence bounds of the two procedures with that of Dunnett's procedure. An application to a real-life data is included.
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 | 0.139 | 0.450 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".