MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404570762 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.11271

Mean Estimation in Banach Spaces Under Infinite Variance and Martingale Dependence

2024· preprint· en· W4404570762 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Justin Whitehouse, Ben Chugg, Diego Martinez-Taboada, Aaditya Ramdas

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMartingale (probability theory)MathematicsBanach spaceMartingale difference sequencePure mathematicsLocal martingaleEconometricsApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider estimating the shared mean of a sequence of heavy-tailed random variables taking values in a Banach space. In particular, we revisit and extend a simple truncation-based mean estimator first proposed by Catoni and Giulini. While existing truncation-based approaches require a bound on the raw (non-central) second moment of observations, our results hold under a bound on either the central or non-central $p$th moment for some $p \in (1,2]$. Our analysis thus handles distributions with infinite variance. The main contributions of the paper follow from exploiting connections between truncation-based mean estimation and the concentration of martingales in smooth Banach spaces. We prove two types of time-uniform bounds on the distance between the estimator and unknown mean: line-crossing inequalities, which can be optimized for a fixed sample size $n$, and iterated logarithm inequalities, which match the tightness of line-crossing inequalities at all points in time up to a doubly logarithmic factor in $n$. Our results do not depend on the dimension of the Banach space, hold under martingale dependence, and all constants in the inequalities are known and small.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.280
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207