MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737290167 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v6n5p18

Nonparametric Tests for Convexity/Monotonicity/Positivity of Multivariate Functions with Noisy Observations

2017· article· en· W2737290167 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eunji Lim, Elizabeth Tavarez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonotonic functionConvexityMathematicsFunction (biology)Monotone polygonConvex functionApplied mathematicsRegular polygonCombinatoricsZero (linguistics)Isotonic regressionNonparametric statisticsInfinitySet (abstract data type)Discrete mathematicsMathematical analysisStatisticsComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new method of testing for a function's convexity, monotonicity, or positivity, based on some noisy observations of the function made over a finite set $\mathcal{T}$ of points in the domain, where the observations can be made multiple times at each point in $\mathcal{T}$. One of the traditional approaches to the test of a function's shape characteristic is to fit a convex, a monotone, or a positive function, depending on the shape characteristic we wish to test for, to the data set minimizing the sum of squared errors, and to compute the sum of squared differences (SSD) between the fit and the data set. While the traditional approach proceeds by observing the SSD as the number of points in $\mathcal{T}$ increases to infinity, we propose observing the SSD as $r$, the number of observations taken at each point in $\mathcal{T}$, increases to infinity. This new way of observing the asymptotic behavior of the SSD leads to a test procedure that does not require the estimation of any additional parameters, and hence, is easy to implement. The proposed test procedure is proven to achieve a prescribed power as $r \rightarrow \infty$. Numerical examples illustrate that the proposed test successfully detects the convexity/monotonicity/positivity of a function, as well as the non-convexity/non-monotonicity/non-positivity of a function.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207