Asymptotic efficiency of inferential models and a possibilistic Bernstein--von Mises theorem

Jonathan P. Williams; Ryan Martin

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 87 references

Asymptotic efficiency of inferential models and a possibilistic Bernstein--von Mises theorem

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves a possibilistic Bernstein–von Mises theorem showing that inferential models—imprecise, finite-sample-valid statistical methods—are asymptotically efficient, with large-sample contours equal to a Gaussian possibility…

desk verdict A genuinely new asymptotic-efficiency result for inferential models, with a solid proof of the main theorem but a nuisance-parameter section that is not yet fully rigorous. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15243 v2 pith:YADHHZAF submitted 2024-12-13 math.ST stat.TH

Ryan Martin , Jonathan P. Williams This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.STstat.TH MSC 62F1262F15

keywords inferentialmodelspossibilitytheoryBernstein–vonMisestheoremasymptoticefficiencyCramér–Raolowerboundrelativelikelihoodnuisanceparametersprofile

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether an inferential model (IM), which replaces precise probabilities with possibility contours and thereby guarantees exact finite-sample validity, can also be statistically efficient in large samples. It answers yes. Its possibilistic Bernstein–von Mises theorem shows that, under standard regularity plus a global Lipschitz condition on the log-likelihood, the IM contour converges uniformly on compact sets to a Gaussian possibility contour with covariance equal to the Cramér–Rao lower bound. Thus the imprecision that buys finite-sample validity costs nothing asymptotically. The same tool settles that profile-based marginalization beats extension-based marginalization when nuisance parameters are eliminated, because the extension-based contour carries extra chi-square degrees of freedom and is strictly less peaked.

What carries the argument

The central object is the IM possibility contour $\pi_{x_n}(\theta)=P_\theta\{R(X_n,\theta)\le R(x_n,\theta)\}$, the probability-to-possibility transform of the relative likelihood. The proof is a two-step bound: first, local asymptotic normality shows that the distribution of the relative likelihood converges locally uniformly to that of $\exp\{-\tfrac12\chi^2_D\}$; second, a continuous-mapping argument shows that the transform of the observed relative likelihood merges with the Gaussian possibility contour, with the global Lipschitz condition and Donsker properties controlling the empirical process for non-local $\theta$. The same decomposition, with the profile relative likelihood and the efficient score in place of the ordinary ones, drives the nuisance-parameter theorems.

What would settle it

Simulate a regular model whose log-likelihood is not globally Lipschitz, such as a Cauchy location model, and compute $\sup_{\theta\in K}|\pi_{X_n}(\theta)-\gamma_{X_n}(\theta)|$ for a compact $K$ as $n$ grows; if the distance fails to vanish in $P_\Theta$-probability, the Lipschitz envelope condition is doing load-bearing work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For iid data from a regular parametric model, the IM possibility contour $\pi_{X_n}(\theta)=P_\theta\{R(X_n,\theta)\le R(x_n,\theta)\}$, defined as the probability-to-possibility transform of the relative likelihood, is asymptotically indistinguishable from the Gaussian possibility contour $\gamma_{X_n}(\theta)$ whose center is $\Theta+n^{-1/2}\Delta_\Theta(X_n)$ and whose covariance matrix is $(nI_\Theta)^{-1}$. Theorem 1 states that $\sup_{\theta\in K}|\pi_{X_n}(\theta)-\gamma_{X_n}(\theta)|\to 0$ in $P_\Theta$-probability for every compact $K$, given differentiability in quadratic mean, consistency of the maximum likelihood estimator, and a global Lipschitz bound on the log-likelihood with a square-integrable envelope. Consequently the IM's credal set is asymptotically the smallest credal set that contains the efficient Gaussian distribution, so the IM is both finite-sample valid and asymptotically efficient. The analogous theorems for nuisance parameters show that the profile-based marginal IM converges to a Gaussian contour with covariance given by the efficient Fisher information and chi-square degrees of freedom equal to the interest dimension, while extension-based marginalization carries the full dimension and is strictly less efficient.

Load-bearing premise

The theorem's load-bearing premise is that the log-likelihood is globally Lipschitz with a square-integrable envelope and that the maximum likelihood estimator is consistent, because those assumptions control the relative likelihood for parameter values far from the truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

IM confidence sets asymptotically coincide with the textbook likelihood-based elliptical sets, so the IM is as tight as any asymptotically efficient method while remaining exactly valid at every finite sample size.
The IM's asymptotic credal set is the smallest one containing the Gaussian with Cramér–Rao covariance, meaning the imprecision inherent in the IM does not enlarge the limiting uncertainty quantification.
The Bayes/fiducial posterior becomes the inner probabilistic approximation of the IM asymptotically, extending an exact connection previously known only for group transformation models to all sufficiently regular models.
For nuisance-parameter problems, profiling is asymptotically more efficient than extension-based marginalization, since the latter inflates the chi-square degrees of freedom from the interest dimension to the full parameter dimension.
Under parameter orthogonality, the profile-based marginal IM achieves adaptive efficiency, matching the performance achievable when the nuisance parameter is known.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same two-step argument should carry over to M-estimation: replacing the relative likelihood by empirical regret would give an analogous possibilistic Bernstein–von Mises result, with the Fisher information replaced by an appropriate sandwich variance.
The global Lipschitz condition, though stronger than what Bayesian Bernstein–von Mises theorems typically assume, points toward a quantitative finite-$n$ version of the result: tracking the proof's bounds could give explicit rates and tell practitioners how large $n$ must be before profiling is safely more efficient than extension.
Because the Gaussian contour with Cramér–Rao covariance is the limit of any efficient estimator's distribution, the theorem suggests the IM's asymptotic credal set may be minimal for any valid method: it contains the relevant efficient Gaussian and nothing else, so validity and efficiency may be compatible in an optimal, not merely possible, way.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline result is real: this is the first general possibilistic Bernstein–von Mises theorem for likelihood-based inferential models. The paper shows the IM contour converges uniformly to a Gaussian possibility contour with Fisher information, so IMs are asymptotically efficient while retaining finite-sample validity. That settles a conjecture that mattered, and it is a meaningful advance for both the IM literature and imprecise-probability inference more broadly. The proof of Theorem 1 is mostly careful and uses standard machinery — LAN, Wilks, empirical process — and the decomposition into the Wilks term and the relative-likelihood term is sound. I read the Donsker argument in Lemma 2; the global Lipschitz condition is strong, but the paper admits this, and the conclusion follows from the stated assumptions. No circularity. The soft spots are in Section 4. The stress-test note is right: Theorem 2 is only a sketch. The proof invokes the Murphy–van der Vaart profile likelihood expansion in (31) without verifying its conditions from Theorem 1's assumptions. Uniformity over the nuisance parameter L0 is asserted rather than proved, and the compactness restriction is never integrated into the limit. As written, the profiling-versus-extension result is not established. That said, this is fixable — adding the standard profile-likelihood regularity conditions would repair it without changing the paper's message. Theorem 3 is simpler and probably correct as sketched, since it follows from Theorem 1 plus a calculation with Gaussian possibility contours, but it is also under-supplied with details. The numerical examples are illustrative and have no code, so they are not the primary evidence; that is fine. Who this is for: statisticians working on foundations of inference, especially those interested in imprecise probability, likelihood-based inference, and the relationship between Bayesian, fiducial, and IM methods. The core theorem alone justifies referee time. The nuisance-parameter claims are important but need a complete proof before they can be taken as settled. I would recommend accepting the paper for peer review with a clear request to expand Theorem 2's proof or state it under conditions that are actually verified.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a possibilistic analogue of the Bernstein--von Mises theorem for likelihood-based inferential models (IMs). Under differentiability in quadratic mean, a global Lipschitz condition on the log-likelihood, and consistency of the maximum likelihood estimator, Theorem 1 states that the IM contour converges locally uniformly, in P_Θ-probability, to a Gaussian possibility contour centered at the MLE with covariance equal to the Cramér--Rao bound; the paper interprets this as asymptotic efficiency of the finite-sample valid IM. The paper then treats nuisance parameters, claiming in Theorems 2 and 3 that the profiling-based marginal IM is asymptotically tighter than the extension-based marginal IM, which would settle a previously open question. Numerical examples illustrate the main theorem and the profiling/extension comparison.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the theory of inferential models and to imprecise-probabilistic statistics: it provides a theoretical justification that no asymptotic efficiency is lost by insisting on exact finite-sample validity, and it would settle the profiling-versus-extension efficiency question. The paper is generally well written and self-contained, and the proof of Theorem 1 is a serious, largely standard derivation. The authors are also transparent about the strength of the assumptions, especially in Remark 2. However, the proof of Theorem 2 is only a sketch and relies on an external profile-likelihood expansion whose conditions are not verified; this is load-bearing for the paper's headline claims about nuisance-parameter elimination.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.4 and Appendix A.2, Theorem 2] The proof of Theorem 2 is only a sketch and Eq. (31) is the load-bearing step. As written, Eq. (31) states that -2 log R_pr(X_n, φ_z^n) equals {z - eΔ_{Φ,Λ}(X_n)}^T (n \tilde{I}_{Φ,Λ}) {z - eΔ_{Φ,Λ}(X_n)} + o_{P_{Φ,Λ}}(1), which is dimensionally inconsistent: for fixed z and eΔ = O_P(1), the right-hand side is of order n, whereas the left-hand side is O_P(1) under the local parametrization φ_z^n = Φ + n^{-1/2}z. The factor n should be removed to match Eq. (25) and the standard profile-likelihood asymptotics. Moreover, the expansion is imported from Murphy and van der Vaart (2000) without verifying their conditions (e.g., regularity of the efficient score, convergence of the profile likelihood process, Donsker-type conditions); these do not follow automatically from the assumptions of Theorem 1. Thus the theorem is not established under its stated hypotheses.
[Appendix A.1, Lemma 2] The treatment of diverging sequences z_n in Lemma 2 is too terse and leaves gaps in the proof of Theorem 1. The proof asserts the bounds K(p_Θ, p_{θ_z^n}) ≲ n^{-1} z_n^2 and v(θ_z^n) ≲ n^{-1} z_n^2 and invokes van der Vaart's Example 19.7 for the Donsker property of the class of log-likelihood ratios, but these assertions are not derived from the stated global Lipschitz and square-integrability assumptions. In particular, the quadratic upper bound on the Kullback--Leibler divergence is not an immediate consequence of differentiability in quadratic mean alone, and it is used to conclude that the IM contour vanishes at false θ. This step must be written out before Theorem 1 can be considered fully proven.
[Section 4.4, Theorems 2 and 3] Theorems 2 and 3 are stated for the compact-restricted contours π^pr_{X_n} and π^ex_{X_n} defined in (24) and (26), rather than for the original extension- and profiling-based marginal contours introduced in Section 4.2. The asymptotic efficiency comparison between profiling and extension is therefore a comparison of these modified constructions. The paper should explicitly state that the open question is settled only for the compact-restricted versions and should explain why this restriction does not alter the asymptotic ordering of the two strategies.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2.1.2, Eq. (2)] The notation for the inverse covariance matrix is ambiguous: the text writes Σ^{-1} with blocks Σ_{11}, Σ_{12}, Σ_{21}, Σ_{22} using the same symbols as the blocks of Σ, and Eq. (2) then mixes these. Please disambiguate, for example by using Σ^{ij} for blocks of the inverse.
[Section 3.6, Corollary 1] The statement writes both the convergence of the upper possibility of H and of its complement with the same symbol Π. Since the necessity measure is defined as \underline{Π}(H)=1-Π(H^c), the claim would be clearer if written as \underline{Π}_{X_n}(H) → 1 or equivalently Π_{X_n}(H^c) → 0 in P_Θ-probability.
[Section 4.4, after Eq. (25)] The distribution function G is reused for exp{-1/2 ChiSq(D_φ)} in the nuisance-parameter setting, whereas in the proof of Theorem 1 the same symbol G denotes the distribution of exp{-1/2 ChiSq(D)}. This can confuse readers; a subscript, e.g., G_{D_φ}, would help.
[Appendix A.1, Lemma 1] The proof states that pointwise convergence of G_n^θ to G can be strengthened to uniform convergence because the distribution functions are bounded and monotone. This is true, but a brief argument (e.g., using the continuity of G or a standard convergence-of-distribution-functions lemma) would make the step transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the possibilistic BvM limit is derived from external Wilks/LAN asymptotics, not assumed by the IM construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The IM contour in (3) is defined by a probability integral transform of the relative likelihood, and Theorem 1's proof in Appendix A.1 does not assume the Gaussian limit. It decomposes |pi - gamma| into |G_n - G| + |G(R) - gamma|; the first term is obtained from Wilks's theorem via LAN (van der Vaart 1998, Thm 7.2 and Cor 5.53) and local uniform CLT (Bickel et al. 1998, Prop 2.1.2), while the second follows from the quadratic expansion of the log-likelihood ratio and the definition of the Gaussian possibility contour. None of these inputs contains the claim that the IM is asymptotically efficient. The Gaussian contour gamma is the natural limit implied by those classical results, not a quantity fitted to the IM. Theorems 2 and 3 use the same pattern; Theorem 2's sketch invokes the external profile-likelihood expansion of Murphy and van der Vaart (2000) rather than a self-citation, and Theorem 3 is a corollary of Theorem 1 plus the earlier Gaussian-marginalization calculation. The authors' own previous work supplies the IM construction, the conjectures, and interpretive connections, but the asymptotic claims are proven through classical results. The only flagged limitation, Remark 2, explicitly notes that the conditions are stronger than those in the Bayesian BvM theorem and conjectures a relaxation using a normalized likelihood; this is an honest scope statement, not a circular step. No load-bearing reduction to the paper's own inputs is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof relies on standard asymptotic statistics plus a strong Lipschitz condition; no numbers are fitted and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The model is regular in the sense of Definition 2: differentiability in quadratic mean, non-singular Fisher information, and continuity of the score maps.
This is the standard quadratic-mean-differentiability framework from Bickel et al. (1998) and van der Vaart (1998), invoked in Theorem 1.
domain assumption A consistent maximum likelihood estimator exists.
Assumed just before Theorem 1; used in Lemma 1 to obtain n^{1/2}-consistency via van der Vaart Corollary 5.53.
ad hoc to paper The log-likelihood satisfies |ell_theta(x) - ell_vartheta(x)| <= m(x)||theta - vartheta|| with integral m^2 dP_theta < infinity.
This global Lipschitz condition is not standard; it is introduced to apply Donsker arguments and control non-local departures in Lemma 2.
domain assumption For Theorems 2 and 3, the nuisance parameter is restricted to a compact subset L0 containing the true value, and the profile likelihood expansion of Murphy and van der Vaart (2000) holds.
Used in the proof sketch of Theorem 2; compactness is justified by consistency of the MLE but imposes a boundedness condition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymptotic efficiency of inferential models and a possibilistic Bernstein--von Mises theorem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YADHHZAF

@misc{pith2026241215243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymptotic efficiency of inferential models and a possibilistic Bernstein--von Mises theorem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YADHHZAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15243}
}

read the original abstract

The inferential model (IM) framework offers an alternative to the classical probabilistic (e.g., Bayesian and fiducial) uncertainty quantification in statistical inference. A key distinction is that classical uncertainty quantification takes the form of precise probabilities and offers only limited large-sample validity guarantees, whereas the IM's uncertainty quantification is imprecise in such a way that exact, finite-sample valid inference is possible. But is the IM's imprecision and finite-sample validity compatible with statistical efficiency? That is, can IMs be both finite-sample valid and asymptotically efficient? This paper gives an affirmative answer to this question via a new possibilistic Bernstein--von Mises theorem that parallels a fundamental Bayesian result. Among other things, our result shows that the IM solution is efficient in the sense that, asymptotically, its credal set is the smallest that contains the Gaussian distribution with variance equal to the Cramer--Rao lower bound. Moreover, a corresponding version of this new Bernstein--von Mises theorem is presented for problems that involve the elimination of nuisance parameters, which settles an open question concerning the relative efficiency of profiling-based versus extension-based marginalization strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15243 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Plot of the exact and approximate IM contour for the mode Θ in the triangular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Results for logistic regression in Example 4. Panel (a) shows the data (with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Data consists of n = 15 observations from a N(Φ,Λ) model, with observed maximum likelihood estimators ϕˆ xn = 3 and λˆ xn = 1.5. Panel (a) shows the joint IM contour evaluated based on Monte Carlo, while Panel (b) shows the extension- and profiling-based marginal IM co…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Plot of the exact and approximate profile-based marginal IM contour for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Plot of the exact and approximate profile-based marginal IM contour for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Results for logistic regression in Example 4 and, more specifically, in Exam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Augustin, T., Walter, G., and Coolen, F. P. A. (2014). Statistical inference. In Introduction to I mprecise P robabilities , Wiley Ser. Probab. Stat., pages 135--189. Wiley, Chichester

2014
[2]

S., Martin, R., and Ferson, S

Balch, M. S., Martin, R., and Ferson, S. (2019). Satellite conjunction analysis and the false confidence theorem. Proc. Royal Soc. A , 475(2227):2018.0565

arXiv 2019
[3]

Basu, D. (1977). On the elimination of nuisance parameters. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 72(358):355--366

1977
[4]

Berger, J. O. (1984). The robust B ayesian viewpoint. In Robustness of B ayesian A nalyses , volume 4 of Stud. Bayesian Econometrics , pages 63--144. North-Holland, Amsterdam. With comments and with a reply by the author

1984
[5]

O., Bernardo, J

Berger, J. O., Bernardo, J. M., and Sun, D. (2009). The formal definition of reference priors. Ann. Statist. , 37(2):905--938

2009
[6]

J., Klaassen, C

Bickel, P. J., Klaassen, C. A. J., Ritov, Y., and Wellner, J. A. (1998). Efficient and A daptive E stimation for S emiparametric M odels . Springer-Verlag, New York

1998
[7]

Borgert, J. E. and Hannig, J. (2024). A Bernstein--von Mises theorem for generalized fiducial distributions . arXiv:2401.17961

work page arXiv 2024
[8]

and Williams, J

Carmichael, I. and Williams, J. P. (2018). An exposition of the false confidence theorem. Stat , 7(1):e201

2018

Show all 87 references

[9]

and Martin, R

Cella, L. and Martin, R. (2022a). Direct and approximately valid probabilistic inference on a class of statistical functionals. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. , 151:205--224

2022
[10]

and Martin, R

Cella, L. and Martin, R. (2022b). Valid inferential models for prediction in supervised learning problems. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. , 150:1--18

2022
[11]

and Martin, R

Cella, L. and Martin, R. (2022c). Validity, consonant plausibility measures, and conformal prediction. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. , 141:110--130

2022
[12]

and Martin, R

Cella, L. and Martin, R. (2023). Possibility-theoretic statistical inference offers performance and probativeness assurances. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. , 163:109060

2023
[13]

and Martin, R

Cella, L. and Martin, R. (2024). Variational approximations of possibilistic inferential models. In Bi, Y., Jousselme, A.-L., and Denoeux, T., editors, BELIEF 2024 , volume 14909 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence , pages 121--130, Switzerland. Springer Nature

2024
[14]

Couso, I., Montes, S., and Gil, P. (2001). The necessity of the strong -cuts of a fuzzy set. Internat. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowledge-Based Systems , 9(2):249--262

2001
[15]

Cox, D. R. and Reid, N. (1987). Parameter orthogonality and approximate conditional inference (with discussion). J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B , 49(1):1--39

1987
[16]

Cram\'er, H. (1946). Mathematical M ethods of S tatistics , volume vol. 9 of Princeton Mathematical Series . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

1946
[17]

Dempster, A. P. (1967). Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann. Math. Statist. , 38:325--339

1967
[18]

Dempster, A. P. (2008). The D empster-- S hafer calculus for statisticians. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. , 48(2):365--377

2008
[19]

Den ux, T. (2006). Constructing belief functions from sample data using multinomial confidence regions. Internat. J. of Approx. Reason. , 42(3):228--252

2006
[20]

Den ux, T. (2014). Likelihood-based belief function: justification and some extensions to low-quality data. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. , 55(7):1535--1547

2014
[21]

Den ux, T. (2023a). Parametric families of continuous belief functions based on generalized G aussian random fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 471:Paper No. 108679, 33

2023
[22]

Den ux, T. (2023b). Reasoning with fuzzy and uncertain evidence using epistemic random fuzzy sets: general framework and practical models. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 453:1--36

2023
[23]

and Dubois, D

Destercke, S. and Dubois, D. (2014). Special cases. In Introduction to I mprecise P robabilities , Wiley Ser. Probab. Stat., pages 79--92. Wiley, Chichester

2014
[24]

Dubois, D. (2006). Possibility theory and statistical reasoning. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. , 51(1):47--69

2006
[25]

Dubois, D., Foulloy, L., Mauris, G., and Prade, H. (2004). Probability-possibility transformations, triangular fuzzy sets, and probabilistic inequalities. Reliab. Comput. , 10(4):273--297

2004
[26]

and Prade, H

Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1988). Possibility T heory . Plenum Press, New York

1988
[27]

and Prade, H

Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1990). Consonant approximations of belief functions. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. , 4(5-6):419--449

1990
[28]

Eaton, M. L. (1989). Group I nvariance A pplications in S tatistics . Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Hayward, CA

1989
[29]

Efron, B. (2013). Discussion: `` C onfidence distribution, the frequentist distribution estimator of a parameter: a review'' [mr3047496]. Int. Stat. Rev. , 81(1):41--42

2013
[30]

Fisher, R. A. (1935). The fiducial argument in statistical inference. Ann. Eugenics , 6:391--398

1935
[31]

Fraser, D. A. S. (1968). The S tructure of I nference . John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York

1968
[32]

Fraser, D. A. S. (2011). Rejoinder: `` I s B ayes posterior just quick and dirty confidence?''. Statist. Sci. , 26(3):329--331

2011
[33]

Fraser, D. A. S. (2013). Discussion: `` C onfidence distribution, the frequentist distribution estimator of a parameter: a review'' [mr3047496]. Int. Stat. Rev. , 81(1):42--48

2013
[34]

Fraser, D. A. S., Reid, N., and Wong, A. (1997). Simple and accurate inference for the mean of a gamma model. Canad. J. Statist. , 25(1):91--99

1997
[35]

and van der Vaart, A

Ghosal, S. and van der Vaart, A. (2017). Fundamentals of N onparametric B ayesian I nference , volume 44 of Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

2017
[36]

K., Delampady, M., and Samanta, T

Ghosh, J. K., Delampady, M., and Samanta, T. (2006). An I ntroduction to B ayesian A nalysis . Springer, New York

2006
[37]

Gleser, L. J. and Hwang, J. T. (1987). The nonexistence of 100(1- )\ expected diameter in errors-in-variables and related models. Ann. Statist. , 15(4):1351--1362

1987
[38]

Gombay, E. (1997). The likelihood ratio under noncontiguous alternatives. Canad. J. Statist. , 25(3):417--423

1997
[39]

H\'ajek, J. (1972). Local asymptotic minimax and admissibility in estimation. In Proceedings of the S ixth B erkeley S ymposium on M athematical S tatistics and P robability ( U niv. C alifornia, B erkeley, C alif., 1970/1971), V ol. I : T heory of statistics , pages 175--194....

1972
[40]

Hannig, J., Iyer, H., Lai, R. C. S., and Lee, T. C. M. (2016). Generalized fiducial inference: a review and new results. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 111(515):1346--1361

2016
[41]

and Rubinfeld, D

Harrison, D. and Rubinfeld, D. L. (1978). Hedonic housing prices and the demand for clean air. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. , 5:81--102

1978
[42]

Hose, D. (2022). Possibilistic R easoning with I mprecise P robabilities: S tatistical I nference and D ynamic F iltering . PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart. https://dominikhose.github.io/dissertation/diss_dhose.pdf

2022
[43]

Jeffreys, H. (1946). An invariant form for the prior probability in estimation problems. Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A , 186:453--461

1946
[44]

Johnson, N. L. and Kotz, S. (1999). Non-smooth sailing or triangular distributions revisited after some 50 years. Statistician , 48:179--187

1999
[45]

Keener, R. W. (2010). Theoretical S tatistics . Springer Texts in Statistics. Springer, New York

2010
[46]

Le Cam, L. (1956). On the asymptotic theory of estimation and testing hypotheses. In Proceedings of the T hird B erkeley S ymposium on M athematical S tatistics and P robability, 1954--1955, vol. I , pages 129--156. Univ. California Press, Berkeley-Los Angeles, Calif

1956
[47]

Le Cam, L. (1960). Locally asymptotically normal families of distributions. C ertain approximations to families of distributions and their use in the theory of estimation and testing hypotheses. Univ. California Publ. Statist. , 3:37--98

1960
[48]

Le Cam, L. (1970). On the assumptions used to prove asymptotic normality of maximum likelihood estimates. Ann. Math. Statist. , 41:802--828

1970
[49]

Le Cam, L. (1986). Asymptotic M ethods in S tatistical D ecision T heory . Springer Series in Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York

1986
[50]

Lehmann, E. L. and Casella, G. (1998). Theory of P oint E stimation . Springer Texts in Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition

1998
[51]

Levi, I. (1980). The E nterprise of K nowledge . The MIT Press, Boston

1980
[52]

Lin, H. (2024). Convergence to the truth. arXiv:2410.11399

2024 arXiv
[53]

Martin, R. (2015). Plausibility functions and exact frequentist inference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 110(512):1552--1561

2015
[54]

Martin, R. (2018). On an inferential model construction using generalized associations. J. Statist. Plann. Inference , 195:105--115

2018
[55]

Martin, R. (2019). False confidence, non-additive beliefs, and valid statistical inference. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. , 113:39--73

2019
[56]

Martin, R. (2021a). An imprecise-probabilistic characterization of frequentist statistical inference. arXiv:2112.10904

2021 arXiv
[57]

Martin, R. (2021b). Inferential models and the decision-theoretic implications of the validity property. arXiv:2112.13247

2021 arXiv
[58]

Martin, R. (2022a). Valid and efficient imprecise-probabilistic inference with partial priors, I . F irst results. arXiv:2203.06703

2022 arXiv
[59]

Martin, R. (2022b). Valid and efficient imprecise-probabilistic inference with partial priors, II . G eneral framework. arXiv:2211.14567

2022 arXiv
[60]

Martin, R. (2023a). Fiducial inference viewed through a possibility-theoretic inferential model lens. In Miranda, E., Montes, I., Quaeghebeur, E., and Vantaggi, B., editors, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium on Imprecise Probability: Theories and Applicatio...

2023
[61]

Martin, R. (2023b). Valid and efficient imprecise-probabilistic inference with partial priors, III . M arginalization. arXiv:2309.13454

2023 arXiv
[62]

and Liu, C

Martin, R. and Liu, C. (2013). Inferential models: a framework for prior-free posterior probabilistic inference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 108(501):301--313

2013
[63]

and Liu, C

Martin, R. and Liu, C. (2015a). Inferential M odels , volume 147 of Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability . CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

2015
[64]

and Liu, C

Martin, R. and Liu, C. (2015b). Marginal inferential models: prior-free probabilistic inference on interest parameters. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 110(512):1621--1631

2015
[65]

and Williams, J

Martin, R. and Williams, J. P. (2024). Large-sample theory for inferential models: a possibilistic B ernstein--von M ises theorem. In Bi, Y., Jousselme, A.-L., and Denoeux, T., editors, Belief Functions: Theory and Applications. BELIEF 2024 , volume 14909 of Lecture Notes in C...

2024
[66]

Mayo, D. G. (2018). S tatistical I nference as S evere T esting . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

2018
[67]

Murphy, S. A. and van der Vaart, A. W. (2000). On profile likelihood. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 95(450):449--485. With discussion

2000
[68]

Peirce, C. S. (1960). Collected P apers . The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Hartshorne, Charles and Weiss, Paul, Eds

1960
[69]

Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and P rediction: A n A nalysis of the F oundation and the S tructure of K nowledge . University of Chicago Press

1938
[70]

Royall, R. M. (1997). Statistical E vidence , volume 71 of Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability . Chapman & Hall, London

1997
[71]

Schervish, M. J. (1995). Theory of S tatistics . Springer-Verlag, New York

1995
[72]

Schmidt, R. (1934). Statistical analysis of one-dimensional distributions. Ann. Math. Statist. , 5(1):30--72

1934
[73]

and Hjort, N

Schweder, T. and Hjort, N. L. (2013). Discussion: `` C onfidence distribution, the frequentist distribution estimator of a parameter: a review'' [mr3047496]. Int. Stat. Rev. , 81(1):56--68

2013
[74]

Shafer, G. (1976). A M athematical T heory of E vidence . Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J

1976
[75]

Shafer, G. (1982). Belief functions and parametric models. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B , 44(3):322--352. With discussion

1982
[76]

Shiue, W. K. and Bain, L. J. (1990). Simple approximate inference procedures for the mean of the gamma model. J. Statist. Comput. Simulation , 34:67--73

1990
[77]

Simpson, T. (1755). XIX . A letter to the R ight H onourable G eorge E arl of M ac C lesfield, P resident of the R oyal S ociety, on the advantage of taking the mean of a number of observations, in practical astronomy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. , 49:82--93
[78]

Stein, C. (1959). An example of wide discrepancy between fiducial and confidence intervals. Ann. Math. Statist. , 30:877--880

1959
[79]

Troffaes, M. C. M. and de Cooman, G. (2014). Lower P revisions . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester

2014
[80]

van der Vaart, A. (2002). The statistical work of L ucien L e C am. Ann. Statist. , 30(3):631--682. Dedicated to the memory of Lucien Le Cam

2002
[81]

van der Vaart, A. W. (1998). Asymptotic S tatistics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

1998
[82]

Walley, P. (1991). Statistical R easoning with I mprecise P robabilities , volume 42 of Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability . Chapman & Hall Ltd., London

1991
[83]

Wasserman, L. A. (1990). Belief functions and statistical inference. Canad. J. Statist. , 18(3):183--196

1990
[84]

Wilks, S. S. (1938). The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses. Ann. Math. Statist , 9:60--62

1938
[85]

Zabell, S. L. (1992). R. A . F isher and the fiducial argument. Statist. Sci. , 7(3):369--387

1992
[86]

Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. I . Information Sci. , 8:199--249

1975
[87]

Zadeh, L. A. (1978). Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 1(1):3--28

1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Augustin, T., Walter, G., and Coolen, F. P. A. (2014). Statistical inference. In Introduction to I mprecise P robabilities , Wiley Ser. Probab. Stat., pages 135--189. Wiley, Chichester

2014

[2] [2]

S., Martin, R., and Ferson, S

Balch, M. S., Martin, R., and Ferson, S. (2019). Satellite conjunction analysis and the false confidence theorem. Proc. Royal Soc. A , 475(2227):2018.0565

arXiv 2019

[3] [3]

Basu, D. (1977). On the elimination of nuisance parameters. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 72(358):355--366

1977

[4] [4]

Berger, J. O. (1984). The robust B ayesian viewpoint. In Robustness of B ayesian A nalyses , volume 4 of Stud. Bayesian Econometrics , pages 63--144. North-Holland, Amsterdam. With comments and with a reply by the author

1984

[5] [5]

O., Bernardo, J

Berger, J. O., Bernardo, J. M., and Sun, D. (2009). The formal definition of reference priors. Ann. Statist. , 37(2):905--938

2009

[6] [6]

J., Klaassen, C

Bickel, P. J., Klaassen, C. A. J., Ritov, Y., and Wellner, J. A. (1998). Efficient and A daptive E stimation for S emiparametric M odels . Springer-Verlag, New York

1998

[7] [7]

Borgert, J. E. and Hannig, J. (2024). A Bernstein--von Mises theorem for generalized fiducial distributions . arXiv:2401.17961

work page arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

and Williams, J

Carmichael, I. and Williams, J. P. (2018). An exposition of the false confidence theorem. Stat , 7(1):e201

2018