MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174019841 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.00118

Do we need to estimate the variance in robust mean estimation?

2021· preprint· en· W3174019841 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustificationEstimatorVariance (accounting)Function (biology)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceSample mean and sample covarianceEstimation theoryMathematicsApplied mathematicsStatisticsAlgorithmEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose self-tuned robust estimators for estimating the mean of heavy-tailed distributions, which refer to distributions with only finite variances. Our approach introduces a new loss function that considers both the mean parameter and a robustification parameter. By jointly optimizing the empirical loss function with respect to both parameters, the robustification parameter estimator can automatically adapt to the unknown data variance, and thus the self-tuned mean estimator can achieve optimal finite-sample performance. Our method outperforms previous approaches in terms of both computational and asymptotic efficiency. Specifically, it does not require cross-validation or Lepski's method to tune the robustification parameter, and the variance of our estimator achieves the Cramér-Rao lower bound. Project source code is available at \url{https://github.com/statsle/automean}.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.122 · 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