MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404691850 · doi:10.4171/owr/2024/24

Game-theoretic Statistical Inference: Optional Sampling, Universal Inference, and Multiple Testing Based on E-values

2024· article· en· W4404691850 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Grünwald, Aaditya Ramdas, Ruodu Wang, Johanna F. Ziegel

Bibliographic record

VenueOberwolfach Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInferenceStatistical inferenceComputer scienceMartingale (probability theory)NotationStatistical hypothesis testingArtificial intelligenceMachine learningInterpretation (philosophy)Meaning (existential)Game theoryTheoretical computer scienceData scienceMathematical economicsMathematicsEpistemologyStatisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This half-size MFO workshop brings together researchers in mathematical statistics, probability theory, machine learning, medical sciences, and economics to discuss recent developments in sequential inference. New sequential inference methods that build on nonnegative martingale techniques allow us to elegantly solve prominent shortcomings of traditional statistical hypothesis tests. Instead of p-values, they are based on e-values which have the added benefit that their meaning is much easier to communicate to applied researchers, due to their intuitive interpretation in terms of the wealth of a gambler playing a hypothetically fair game. Significant new contributions to this fast growing research area will be presented in order to stimulate collaborations, discuss and unify notation and concepts in the fields, and tackle a variety of open problems and address current major challenges.

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.152
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.152
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.425
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.102 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOberwolfach ReportsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207