Template:Did you know nominations/Randomised decision rule
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Randomised decision rule
[edit]- ... that a randomised decision rule is sometimes needed to satisfy decision-theoretic criteria such as minimaxity? Young and Smith: Randomised decision rules may appear to be artificial, but minimax solutions may well be of this form.
- ALT1:... that under some decision-theoretic criteria such as minimax, choosing a decision at random is sometimes optimal? Young and Smith: Randomised decision rules may appear to be artificial, but minimax solutions may well be of this form.
- ALT2:... that in the past, some statisticians believed randomising statistical decisions under certain situations to be a promising technique? http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1137076653.
- ALT3:... that randomised decision rules are sometimes required in the frequentist statistical paradigm but never in the Bayesian one? Robert, p.66: Randomized estimators are nonetheless necessary from a frequentist point of view, for instance, for the frequentist theory of tests, as they provide access to confidence levels otherwise unattainable (see Chapter 5). The set D∗ thus appears as a completion of D. However, this modification of the decision space does not modify the Bayesian answers, as shown by the following result
- ALT4:... that a randomised decision rule satisfying the Bayes criterion always has a deterministic alternative? Bickel and Doksum, p.31: For any prior there is always a nonrandomized Bayes procedure, if there is a randomized one.
- Reviewed: Porco (caldera)
- Comment: ALT1 and ALT2 are WP:IARs; I can't think of any way to make the concept more accessible to a broad audience without breaking the rules.
Created/expanded by Kayau (talk). Self-nominated at 04:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC).
- @David Eppstein: Any chance you could review this? It's double Dutch to us lesser mortals. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Er, fine. It's new enough, long enough, clearly notable, adequately sourced (by offline sources hence the AGF tickmark), and modulo a typo in a formula that I fixed looks ok mathematically to me. I think it could stand having a better explanation what a decision rule is, rather than just using that term as if everyone already knows what it means, but that's not a problem for DYK. QPQ done. Earwig found no copyvio. Of the suggested hooks, I like ALT4 best, but might I suggest "non-random" instead of "deterministic" as possibly more widely understandable? ALT2 is vague and problematic wrt WP:PEACOCK. The main hook and ALT1 say the same thing but I think ALT1 says it better; that would also be acceptable. But I think ALT3 is too WP:TECHNICAL to be appealing.—David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, that was very helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
