Invidious Comparisons: Ranking and Selection as Compound Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an innate human tendency, one might call it the “league table mentality,” to construct rankings. Schools, hospitals, sports teams, movies, and myriad other objects are ranked even though their inherent multi‐dimensionality would suggest that—at best—only partial orderings were possible. We consider a large class of elementary ranking problems in which we observe noisy, scalar measurements of merit for n objects of potentially heterogeneous precision and are asked to select a group of the objects that are “most meritorious.” The problem is naturally formulated in the compound decision framework of Robbins's (1956) empirical Bayes theory, but it also exhibits close connections to the recent literature on multiple testing. The nonparametric maximum likelihood estimator for mixture models (Kiefer and Wolfowitz (1956)) is employed to construct optimal ranking and selection rules. Performance of the rules is evaluated in simulations and an application to ranking U.S. kidney dialysis centers.
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 | 0.023 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".