The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An Empirical Distribution Function for Sampling with Incomplete Information
Open accessAbstract
For $i = 1, 2, \cdots, n$, let $N_i$ independent trials be made of an event with probability $p_i$, and suppose that the probabilities $p_i$ are known to satisfy the inequalities $p_1 \geqq p_2 \geqq \cdots \geqq p_n$. Let $a_i$ denote the number of successes in the $i$-th trial, and $p^\ast_i$ the ratio $a_i/N_i(i = 1, 2, \cdots, n)$. Then the maximum likelihood estimates $\bar{p}_1, \cdots, \bar{p}_n$ of the numbers $p_1, \cdots, p_n$ may be found in the following way. If $p^\ast_1 \geqq p^\ast_2 \geqq \cdots \geqq p^\ast_n \geqq 0$, then $\bar{p}_i = p^\ast_i, i = 1, 2, \cdots, n$. If $p^\ast_k \geqq p^\ast_{k+1}$ for some $k(k = 1, 2, \cdots, n - 1)$, then $\bar{p}_k = \bar p_{k+1}$; the ratios $p^\ast_k = a_k/N_k$ and $p^\ast_{k+1} = a_{k+1}/N_{k+1}$ are then replaced in the sequence $p^\ast_1, p^\ast_2, \cdots, p^\ast_n$ by the single ratio $(a_k + a_{k+1}) / (N_k + N_{k+1})$, obtaining an ordered set of only $n - 1$ ratios. This procedure is repeated until an ordered set of ratios is obtained which are monotone non-increasing. Then for each $i, \bar p_i$ is equal to that one of the final set of ratios to which the original ratio $a_i/N_i$ contributed. It is seen that this method of calculating the $\bar p_i, \cdots, \bar p_n$ depends on a grouping of observations which might very well appeal to an investigator on purely intuitive grounds. It seems of interest to note that it yields the maximum likelihood estimates of the desired probabilities. Particular examples of this situation are found in bio-assay [3] and in the proximity fuze problem discussed by M. Friedman ([1], Chapter 11). The last section is devoted to a consistency property of the maximum likelihood estimators.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms
Caruana, R., & Niculescu-Mizil, A. (2006) · Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '06 · doi:10.1145/1143844.1143865 · Cited by 2,780
Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning
Niculescu-Mizil, A., & Caruana, R. (2005) · Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '05 · doi:10.1145/1102351.1102430 · Cited by 1,884
Transforming classifier scores into accurate multiclass probability estimates
Zadrozny, B., & Elkan, C. (2002) · Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/775047.775151 · Cited by 1,280
Nonparametric maximum likelihood estimation of a mixing distribution
Laird, N. (1978) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1978.10480103 · Cited by 753
The Isotonic Regression Problem and its Dual
Barlow, R. E., & Brunk, H. D. (1972) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1972.10481216 · Cited by 245
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ayer, M., Brunk, H. D., Ewing, G. M., Reid, W. T., & Silverman, E.
- Venue
- The Annals of Mathematical Statistics
- Publisher
- Institute of Mathematical Statistics
- Published
- 1955-12
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 641-647
- ISSN
- 0003-4851 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2016511206
- Cited by
- 904
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Empirical Distribution Function for Sampling with Incomplete Information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1214/aoms/1177728423
- The paper
- Ayer, M., Brunk, H. D., Ewing, G. M., Reid, W. T., & Silverman, E. (1955). An Empirical Distribution Function for Sampling with Incomplete Information. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177728423
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.