MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569664619 · doi:10.1137/15m100866x

Lower Bounds on the Probability of a Finite Union of Events

2016· article· en· W2569664619 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsUpper and lower boundsEvent (particle physics)Discrete mathematicsPairwise comparisonFinite setClass (philosophy)StatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, lower bounds on the probability of a finite union of events are considered, i.e., $P(\bigcup_{i=1}^N A_i)$, in terms of the individual event probabilities $\{P(A_i), i=1,\ldots,N\}$ and the sums of the pairwise event probabilities, i.e., $\{\sum_{j:j\neq i} P(A_i\cap A_j), i=1,\ldots,N\}$. The contribution of this paper includes the following: (i) in the class of all lower bounds that are established in terms of only the $P(A_i)$'s and $\sum_{j:j\neq i} P(A_i\cap A_j)$'s, the optimal lower bound is given numerically by solving a linear programming (LP) problem with $N^2-N+1$ variables; (ii) a new analytical lower bound is proposed based on a relaxed LP problem, which is at least as good as the bound due to Kuai, Alajaji, and Takahara [Discrete Math., 215 (2000), pp. 147--158]; (iii) numerical examples are provided to illustrate the performance of the bounds.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.268 · 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