A trio of inference problems that could win you a Nobel Prize in statistics (if you help fund it)
Open accessAbstract
Statistical inference is a field full of problems whose solutions require the same intellectual force needed to win a Nobel Prize in other scientific fields. Multiresolution inference is the oldest of the trio. But emerging applications such as individualized medicine have challenged us to the limit: infer estimands with resolution levels that far exceed those of any feasible estimator. Multi-phase inference is another reality because (big) data are almost never collected, processed, and analyzed in a single phase. The newest of the trio is multisource inference, which aims to extract information in data coming from very different sources, some of which were never intended for inference purposes. All of these challenges call for an expanded paradigm with greater emphases on qualitative consistency and relative optimality than do our current inference paradigms.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
With N→∞, ρR,G and ρπ,G become the same, but ρR,G enjoys exactness because (2.3)-(2.4) involve no approximation when using ρR,G.
“Whereas with N →∞ , ρR,G and ρπ,G will become the same, the former enjoys exactness in the sense that (2.3)-(2.4) involve no approximation when we use ρR,G , and hence the updated version reported in this paper.”
From Statistical paradises and paradoxes in big data (I): Law of large populations, big data paradox, and the 2016 US presidential election (2018) · cites this paper as Meng (2014)
Cites
Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes: Design, Modeling, Decisions
Rubin, D. B. (2005) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214504000001880 · Cited by 2,173 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Meng, X.-L. (2018) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/18-aoas1161sf · Cited by 316 · see citing works
Self-citationUnrepresentative big surveys significantly overestimated US vaccine uptake
Bradley, V. C., Kuriwaki, S., Isakov, M., Sejdinovic, D., Meng, X.-L., & Flaxman, S. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04198-4 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
Self-citationTen Simple Rules for Effective Statistical Practice
Kass, R. E., Caffo, B. S., Davidian, M., Meng, X.-L., Yu, B., & Reid, N. (2016) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004961 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Meng, X.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Xiao‐Li Meng
- ORCID
- Xiao‐Li Meng
- Venue
- Past, Present, and Future of Statistical Science
- Publisher
- Chapman and Hall/CRC
- Published
- 2014-03-26
- Pages
- 561-586
- OpenAlex
- W1726802995
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 11.37
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- nrs.harvard.edu
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- statistical inference, personalized medicine, estimands, data sources
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review