On prediction and estimation problems for some multivariate distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : The thesis addresses three distinct decision problems concerning prediction and estimation for multivariate distributions. (1) Predictive density estimators with integrated $L_1$ loss for spherically symmetric distributions: we extend the scale expansion improvements under integrated $L_1$ loss, derived for the univariate case by Kubokawa et al. (2017), to multivariate scenarios. We also provide scale expansion improvements on plug-in densities of the form $q(\\|y-\\hat{\\theta}(X)\\|^2)$ for cases where $\\theta$ is restricted to a compact parameter space, even when $\\hat{\\theta}(X)$ is adapted to the parameter space. The findings also encompass a broader class of loss functions of the form $\\gamma(L_1(\\theta,\\hat{q}))$ with strictly increasing $\\gamma$. (2) Bayesian inference and prediction for mean-mixtures of normal distributions: we explore the problem of predictive density estimation for mean-mixtures of multivariate normal (MMN) distributions under Kullback-Leibler loss. We identify classes of plug-in type predictive densities and of Bayes predictive densities which are minimax and dominate the benchmark minimum equivariant estimator (MRE) for the case when the dimension of the location parameter is greater than or equal to four. Additionally, we present novel representations for Bayesian posterior distributions and predictive densities for MMN models, filling a gap in the existing literature. We also investigate implications for certain type of parametric restrictions on $\\theta$, and illustrate and comment the findings based on numerical evaluations. (3) Construction of proper Bayes minimax multiple shrinkage estimators: we address the canonical problem of estimating the mean of multivariate normal distributions under quadratic loss, and propose a feasible approach for constructing minimax pseudo Bayes multiple shrinkage estimators. This approach employs particular spherically symmetric priors, leading to scalable marginal densities, which satisfy Stein's minimaxity condition of superharmonicity. Furthermore, we demonstrate how the general framework allows for the construction of proper priors resulting in minimax multiple shrinkage estimators. Notably, we reveal the effectiveness of adjusted Strawderman-type priors in yielding proper Bayes minimax multiple shrinkage estimators.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".