MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163011639 · doi:10.5705/ss.202021.0112

Shape Constrained Kernel PDF and PMF Estimation

2022· article· en· W3163011639 on OpenAlexaff
Pang Du, Christopher F. Parmeter, Jeffrey S. Racine

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistica Sinica · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPointwiseConvexityMathematicsKernel density estimationKernel (algebra)Boundary (topology)Monotonic functionProbability density functionLogarithmFunction (biology)Upper and lower boundsConvex functionRange (aeronautics)Applied mathematicsMathematical optimizationProbability mass functionLogarithmically convex functionRegular polygonCombinatoricsConvex optimizationConvex combinationEstimatorMathematical analysisStatisticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider shape constrained kernel-based probability density function (PDF) and probability mass function (PMF) estimation. Our approach is of widespread potential applicability and includes, separately or simultaneously, constraints on the PDF (PMF) function itself, its integral (sum), and derivatives (finite-differences) of any order. We also allow for pointwise upper and lower bounds (i.e., inequality constraints) on the PDF and PMF in addition to more popular equality constraints, and the approach handles a range of transformations of the PDF and PMF including, for example, logarithmic transformations (which allows for the imposition of log-concave or log-convex constraints that are popular with practitioners). Theoretical underpinnings for the procedures are provided. A simulation-based comparison of our proposed approach with those obtained using Grenander-type methods is favourable to our approach when the DGP is itself smooth. As far as we know, ours is also the only smooth framework that handles PDFs and PMFs in the presence of inequality bounds, equality constraints, and other popular constraints such as those mentioned above. An implementation in R exists that incorporates constraints such as monotonicity (both increasing and decreasing), convexity and concavity, and log-convexity and log-concavity, among others, while respecting finite-support boundaries via explicit use of boundary kernel functions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistica SinicaSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207