MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132696384

Lower Bounds for Computing Statistical Depth

2002· article· en· W3132696384 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueidUS (Universidad de Sevilla) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsUpper and lower boundsBivariate analysisMathematical proofPoint (geometry)Set (abstract data type)MathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmStatisticsGeometryMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a nite set of points S, two measures of the depth of a query point with respect to S are the Simplicial depth of Liu and the Halfspace depth of Tukey (also known as Location depth). We show that computing these depths requires n log n) time, which matches the upper bound complexities of the algorithms of Rousseeuw and Ruts. Our lower bound proofs may also be applied to two bivariate sign tests: that of Hodges, and that of Oja and Nyblom. 1 Introduction The notion of depth for a point with respect to a data set has been studied extensively by statisticians and computer scientists. Applications include robust estimation, hypothesis testing, graphical display [MRR + 01], data description, multivariate condence regions, p-values, quality indices, control charts [RR96], and even voting theory [RR99]. In general, the depth of a point quanties the degree to which is centrally located in a data set. An introduction to several denitions of depth, as well as their prop...

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.291 · 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