Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rejection threshold used for e-values and e-processes is by default set to 1/α for a guaranteed type-I error control at α, based on Markov’s and Ville’s inequalities. This threshold can be wasteful in practical applications. We discuss how this threshold can be improved under additional distributional assumptions on the e-values; some of these assumptions are naturally plausible and empirically observable, without knowing explicitly the form or model of the e-values. For small values of α, the threshold can roughly be improved (divided) by a factor of 2 for decreasing or unimodal densities, and by a factor of e for decreasing or unimodal-symmetric densities of log-transformed e-values. Moreover, we propose to use the supremum of comonotonic e-values, which is shown to preserve the type-I error guarantee. We also propose some preliminary methods to boost e-values in the e-BH procedure under some distributional assumptions while controlling the false discovery rate. Through a series of simulation studies, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed methods in various testing scenarios, showing enhanced power.
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 | 0.055 | 0.278 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".