MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994922528 · doi:10.1017/jpr.2019.56

On resampling schemes for polytopes

2019· article· en· W2994922528 on OpenAlexaff
Weinan Qi, Mahmoud Zarepour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Probability · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsConvex hullBootstrapping (finance)Consistency (knowledge bases)ResamplingConvex combinationEstimatorCombinatoricsAsymptotic distributionSequence (biology)Applied mathematicsRegular polygonDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsConvex optimizationGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The convex hull of a sample is used to approximate the support of the underlying distribution. This approximation has many practical implications in real life. To approximate the distribution of the functionals of convex hulls, asymptotic theory plays a crucial role. Unfortunately most of the asymptotic results are computationally intractable. To address this computational intractability, we consider consistent bootstrapping schemes for certain cases. Let $S_n=\{X_i\}_{i=1}^{n}$ be a sequence of independent and identically distributed random points uniformly distributed on an unknown convex set in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ ( $d\ge 2$ ). We suggest a bootstrapping scheme that relies on resampling uniformly from the convex hull of $S_n$ . Moreover, the resampling asymptotic consistency of certain functionals of convex hulls is derived under this bootstrapping scheme. In particular, we apply our bootstrapping technique to the Hausdorff distance between the actual convex set and its estimator. For $d=2$ , we investigate the asymptotic consistency of the suggested bootstrapping scheme for the area of the symmetric difference and the perimeter difference between the actual convex set and its estimate. In all cases the consistency allows us to rely on the suggested resampling scheme to study the actual distributions, which are not computationally tractable.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied ProbabilitySame topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207