Bibliographic record
Abstract
An e-value is a nonnegative test statistic whose expected value is at most one under the null hypothesis. This monograph is written to offer a humble, but unified, treatment of e-values in hypothesis testing. The need for such a work at this time can be explained by at least four reasons: (a) e-values have been named, utilized, and studied as a stand-alone concept only in the last few years, and a large body of its potential users do not know what they are; (b) e-values are fundamental objects at the core of hypothesis testing and estimation, and they are both understudied and under-utilized; (c) several application domains in the natural and social sciences would benefit from knowing and adopting methodologies based on e-values in certain contexts to improve statistical efficiency and scientific reproducibility; (d) there has been an explosion of exciting research over the past few years, and hence the time is ripe to collate resources in a selfcontained and concise manner. This monograph is written to offer a humble, but unified, treatment of e-values in hypothesis testing. It is organized into three parts: Fundamental Concepts, Core Ideas, and Advanced Topics. The first part includes four chapters that introduce the basic concepts. The second part includes five chapters of core ideas such as universal inference, log-optimality, e-processes, operations on e-values, and e-values in multiple testing. The third part contains seven chapters of advanced topics. The monograph collates important results from a variety of modern papers on e-values and related concepts, and also contains many results not published elsewhere. It offers a coherent and comprehensive picture on a fast-growing research area, and is ready to use as the basis of a graduate course in statistics and related fields.
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 | 0.058 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.011 |
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".