On extended admissible procedures and their nonstandard Bayes risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For finite parameter spaces, among decision procedures with finite risk functions, a decision procedure is extended admissible if and only if it is Bayes. Various relaxations of this classical equivalence have been established for infinite parameter spaces, but these extensions are each subject to technical conditions that limit their applicability, especially to modern (semi and nonparametric) statistical problems. Using results in mathematical logic and nonstandard analysis, we extend this equivalence to arbitrary statistical decision problems: informally, we show that, among decision procedures with finite risk functions, a decision procedure is extended admissible if and only if it has infinitesimal excess Bayes risk. In contrast to existing results, our equivalence holds in complete generality, that is, without regularity conditions or restrictions on the model or loss function. We also derive a nonstandard analogue of Blyth’s method that yields sufficient conditions for admissibility, and apply the nonstandard theory to derive a purely standard theorem: when risk functions are continuous on a compact Hausdorff parameter space, a procedure is extended admissible if and only if it is Bayes.
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 | 0.025 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".