On some problems of Bayesian region construction with guaranteed coverages
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The general problem of constructing regions that have a guaranteed coverage probability for an arbitrary parameter of interest $$\psi \in \Psi $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>ψ</mml:mi> <mml:mo>∈</mml:mo> <mml:mi>Ψ</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> is considered. The regions developed are Bayesian in nature and the coverage probabilities can be considered as Bayesian confidences with respect to the model obtained by integrating out the nuisance parameters using the conditional prior given $$\psi .$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>ψ</mml:mi> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> Both the prior coverage probability and the prior probability of covering a false value (the accuracy) can be controlled by setting the sample size. These coverage probabilities are considered as a priori figures of merit concerning the reliability of a study while the inferences quoted are Bayesian. Several problems are considered where obtaining confidence regions with desirable properties have proven difficult to obtain. For example, it is shown that the approach discussed never leads to improper regions which has proven to be an issue for some confidence regions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it