Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 54 references

A sliced Wasserstein and diffusion approach to random coefficient models

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a k-nearest-neighbor sliced Wasserstein estimator for the distribution of random coefficients in the linear model $Y=\langle\beta,X\rangle$ and proves polynomial convergence rates without smoothness conditions on the…

desk verdict Solid oracle estimator theory and rates, but the algorithms only provably reach local minima of a Monte Carlo surrogate, so the advertised consistency of the computed output is not yet backed by the theorems. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04654 v2 pith:JTBECK3A submitted 2025-02-07 math.ST econ.EMstat.TH

Keunwoo Lim , Ting Ye , Fang Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STecon.EMstat.TH MSC 62G0562G20
keywords slicedWassersteindistanceminimum-distanceestimationrandomcoefficientmodelsk-nearestneighborsdiffusionprocesstreatmenteffectdistributionnonparametricconsistencyrates
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 studies the linear random coefficient model $Y=\langle\beta,X\rangle$, where each unit has its own coefficient vector $\beta$ and the goal is to estimate the whole distribution of $\beta$, not just its mean and variance, from observations of $(X,Y)$ only. It proposes an estimator that minimizes, over discrete candidate distributions, the integrated squared two-Wasserstein distance between the candidate's projections and $k$-nearest-neighbor empirical measures built from normalized data. The central theoretical claim is that any global minimizer of this objective is consistent at a polynomial rate: $n^{-1/(d+5)}$ for dimensions $2\le d\le5$ and $n^{-1/(2d-1)}$ for $d\ge6$, with an analogous rate under a weaker tail condition that covers intercept models. This matters because the result is obtained without any smoothness assumption on the density of $X$, and the proposed algorithms have complexity that scales polynomially in the dimension rather than exponentially as in grid-based approaches.

What carries the argument

The central object is the k-NN sliced objective $F_k(\mu)=\int_{\mathbb{S}^{d-1}}W_2^2(\hat\mu_k^V,\mu^V)\,d\sigma(V)$. For each direction $V$ on the unit sphere, the data are normalized to $\tilde X_i=X_i/\|X_i\|_2$ and $\tilde Y_i=Y_i/\|X_i\|_2$; the $k$ nearest neighbors of $V$ among the $\tilde X_i$ define a $k$-point empirical measure $\hat\mu_k^V$ of projected responses. Minimizing $F_k$ over $N$-point discrete measures in a bounded ball matches each candidate distribution's one-dimensional projections against these neighborhood empirical projections. The convergence proof separates the error into an empirical-measure term controlled by standard Wasserstein bounds and a localization term controlled by the expected squared angular radius $\gamma(V,k)^2$ of the $k$-nearest-neighbor ball, which Lemma A.2 bounds via the density lower bound or tail condition. For computation, the paper replaces the integral over directions with a Monte Carlo average over $m$ directions and minimizes it by block coordinate descent, yielding a projected-gradient variant whose per-iteration cost is $O(mdn\log n + tmk\log k)$.

What would settle it

For a low-dimensional case such as $d=2$, $n=2000$, compare the output of Algorithm 2 with an exact or near-global minimizer of the Monte Carlo objective $\hat F_k$ computed by fine-grained search over candidate $N$-point measures. If the algorithm's error in $SW_2$ decays slower than the theorem's $n^{-1/7}$ while the global minimizer attains it, the practical consistency claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the distribution of the random coefficient vector $\beta$ in the linear model $Y=\langle\beta,X\rangle$, with $X$ independent of $\beta$ and $\beta$ supported on a bounded ball, is consistently recoverable by the k-NN sliced Wasserstein minimum-distance estimator $\hat\mu_\beta$ defined in (2.3). Theorem 4.2 states that every global minimizer of the population objective satisfies $\mathbb{E}[SW_2(\mu_\beta,\hat\mu_\beta)]\le C n^{-1/(d+5)}$ for $2\le d\le5$ and $\le C n^{-1/(2d-1)}$ for $d\ge6$ under a lower-bound density condition on the direction of $X$, with a further $\alpha$-dependent bound under Assumption 4.4 that permits intercept regressors and polynomial-tailed densities. The paper emphasizes that these rates do not require smoothness of the density of $X$ or its normalized direction, in contrast to earlier estimators in this problem class.

Load-bearing premise

The convergence-rate theorem is proven for the best possible (global) answer to the estimation problem, while the implemented algorithms are only shown to reach a locally best answer to a randomly approximated version of that problem; the paper assumes without proof that the local answer inherits the global rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any global minimizer of $F_k$ is consistent at a polynomial rate for every dimension $d\ge2$, so the full distribution of $\beta$ is estimable from $(X,Y)$ observations alone under the stated assumptions.
  • The rate theorem requires no smooth density for $X$: a lower bound on the spherical density, or a polynomial tail condition, suffices, so intercept models and regressors with limited continuous variation are covered.
  • The proof makes the tuning explicit: choose $N=k=n^{6/(d+5)}$ for $2\le d\le5$ and $N=k=n^{d/(2d-1)}$ for $d\ge6$, with analogous choices (up to $\log n$) under the tail condition.
  • Algorithm 2 has per-iteration cost $O(mdn\log n + tmk\log k)$, giving polynomial-in-$d$ computation instead of the exponentially many grid points used by existing nonparametric estimators.
  • Under the regularized causal working model, the same objective estimates the distribution of unit-level treatment effects in a randomized trial with discrete treatment, and the simulation on the ACTG 175 data illustrates the estimated treatment-effect distributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper proves its rate for global minimizers of the population objective but only shows its algorithms reach local minima of the Monte Carlo objective; closing that gap would require a landscape analysis, for example an incoherence condition under which every local minimum lies near a global one.
  • The diffusion-based Algorithm 3 is presented without rate guarantees; a natural extension is to prove that the Euler-Maruyama particle system converges to the regularized minimum-distance estimator as $m,L\to\infty$ and $h\to0$, putting the generative variant on the same footing as Algorithms 1 and 2.
  • Because $F_k$ is a distance between data-induced and candidate measures, the same construction could be turned into a distributional goodness-of-fit test for random coefficient models, although the paper does not pursue hypothesis testing.
  • The causal application assumes the unit-level treatment effect $R$ is independent of covariates $Z$ but may be correlated with the noise $U$; if that independence fails, the estimator would recover a mixture involving the joint law of $(R,U)$, pointing toward an extension to correlated coefficient models.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a minimum-distance estimator for the distribution of random coefficients β in the linear model Y = ⟨β, X⟩, with β and X independent. The estimator minimizes an integrated squared Wasserstein objective F_k(μ) = ∫_{S^{d-1}} W_2^2(sμ^V_k, μ^V)dσ(V), where sμ^V_k is a k-nearest-neighbor empirical measure of projected observations, and the minimization is over N-point discrete measures supported on a ball. Theorem 4.2 claims polynomial rates, in expectation, for the sliced-Wasserstein distance between any global minimizer and the true distribution under Assumptions 4.3 or 4.4. The computation section introduces a Monte Carlo surrogate sF_k and two block coordinate descent algorithms; Theorem 4.3 states that Algorithm 1 reaches a local minimum of sF_k and that Algorithm 2 tracks it as m→∞. Sections 5–6 extend the approach to a diffusion-based generative algorithm and to treatment-effect estimation, with numerical experiments on simulated data and the ACTG 175 data.

Significance. The oracle consistency result (Theorem 4.2) is a solid contribution: it provides polynomial n^{-1/(d+5)} or n^{-1/(2d-1)} SW2 rates for a minimum-distance estimator without smoothness conditions on the density of X, and the proof uses a clean decomposition with Fournier–Guillin empirical-measure bounds and a new k-NN radius lemma. The proposed algorithms have polynomial complexity in dimension, and reproducible code is provided. The connections to sliced-Wasserstein flows and causal random coefficient models are interesting and will likely stimulate further work. However, the advertised practical consistency of the proposed method is not established: the algorithms are only shown to converge to local minima of the Monte Carlo surrogate, and the bridge to the oracle estimator is missing. This gap must be addressed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 4.2 vs. Section 4.3 and Theorem 4.3] The consistency rates in Theorem 4.2 apply to any global minimizer of the population objective F_k in (2.3), whereas Algorithms 1 and 2 minimize the Monte Carlo surrogate sF_k in (3.2). Theorem 4.3 establishes only that Algorithm 1 outputs a local minimum of sF_k and that Algorithm 2 tracks Algorithm 1 as m→∞; no result shows that a local minimum of sF_k approximately minimizes F_k, nor is there a bound on the suboptimality gap F_k(μ̂_alg) − min_{P_N} F_k. Uniform convergence of sF_k to F_k (Proposition 4.3) does not transfer local minima to global minima, even in the limit. Consequently, the computed estimator is not shown to achieve the rates of Theorem 4.2, and the abstract's claim that 'the proposed method is consistent' is not supported by the theorems as written. The authors should either add a bridging result (e.g., an approximate global optimality guarantee for Algorithm 1 or 2) or explicitly restrict the consistency claim to the oracle estimator and describe the algorithms as heuristics with empirical support.
  2. [Theorem 4.2(ii) and proof, Step 3 Case II] The stated rates in Theorem 4.2(ii) contain a log n factor, but the proof derives an upper bound of order n^{-α/(dα+5α+2)} log n for E[SW2^2] and then applies Jensen's inequality to obtain E[SW2] ≤ C n^{-α/(2dα+10α+4)} (log n)^{1/2} (and similarly in the d ≥ 6 case). The theorem as printed omits the square root on the logarithmic factor. This is a minor correction to the statement, but it should be fixed to accurately reflect the proof.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Algorithm 1 (and 2, 3) inputs] The input lists for Algorithms 1–3 include βi, but β is unobserved and the algorithms' computations do not use βi; this is confusing and should be corrected by removing βi from the inputs.
  2. [Proposition 4.2] The statement of Proposition 4.2 refers to 'the random functions F_k ◦ η' but the proposition concerns the surrogate objective sF_k ◦ η; both the proof and the surrounding text make clear that the functions are sF_k ◦ η, so the statement should be amended.
  3. [Remark 2.1] The claim that when k = n, F_k reduces to the SW2 distance between the empirical measure and the target is inaccurate: sμV_n is built from the transformed observations eY_i eX_i^T V, which coincide with the true projections β_i^T V only approximately, so F_n is not the SW2 distance between the empirical measure of β and the target.
  4. [Introduction and Section 7.1] Typographical errors: 'casual inference' in the paper-organization paragraph should be 'causal inference', and 'folllowing' in Section 7.1 should be 'following'.
  5. [Notation paragraph] The notation paragraph defines the closed ball 'in(R, ∥·∥2)', which should presumably be R^d; the typo is minor but may confuse readers.
  6. [Table 2] In Table 2, the empirical distance for µdis decreases more slowly than for µsph and µdeg as n increases, but the paper does not comment on this; a brief remark would improve the interpretation of the experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the estimator objective is constructed from data only, and the rate proof uses independent empirical-process bounds; the local-minimum gap is a completeness issue, not a circular one.

full rationale

The paper is self-contained against independent benchmarks. The estimator bμβ in (2.3) is defined as a minimizer of F_k, a k-NN-modified sliced Wasserstein objective; the target μβ is not embedded in the objective. Theorem 4.2's proof uses only the minimum-distance inequality F_k(bμ) ≤ F_k(μ_N), the Fournier-Guillin empirical-measure bounds for projected measures, and an oracle NN measure eμV_k introduced solely for analysis; these are external and independent results. The tie-breaking citation to Lin and Han (2024a,b) and background citations to Han et al. (2023), Miao et al. (2024), and Lim and Han (2024) are descriptive and not load-bearing for the rates. Section 5 explicitly disclaims rigorous support for the diffusion algorithm, stating that 'rigorous theoretical support for this approximation is currently unavailable,' which is an acknowledged limitation rather than a circular step. The gap between Theorem 4.2's global-minimizer rate and the local-minima guarantees of Algorithms 1-2 for the Monte Carlo objective sF_k is a correctness or completeness concern, not an instance of a derivation reducing to its own inputs. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work as an external constraint, and no ansatz is smuggled in solely through self-citation. Therefore no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main estimator introduces no invented entities or fitted constants: k, N, and m are structural tuning parameters, and R is a support assumption. The diffusion and causal extensions rely on hand-chosen hyperparameters (λ, h, t, ε) without theoretical guidance. The load-bearing statistical input is the k-NN radius bound (Lemma A.2) under Assumptions 4.3/4.4, which is proven in the appendix.

free parameters (5)
  • neighborhood size k and support size N = k = N = n^{6/(d+5)} for d≤5; n^{d/(2d-1)} for d≥6 (theory); k = ⌈n^{d/(2d-1)}⌉ in experiments
    Tuning parameters balancing bias (NN radius) and variance (empirical measure error); chosen by hand to optimize the rate bound, not fitted to data.
  • Monte Carlo projection count m = m = 50 (Algorithms 1 and 3), m = 1000 (Algorithm 2)
    Number of random directions; theory requires m ≥ 8πR^4 ε^{-2} (Prop A.1) or m ≥ max{d, 2312π d^{12} R^4 ε^{-2}} (Prop A.2), chosen by hand in experiments.
  • diffusion hyperparameters λ, h, t, L = λ = 0.01, h = 1, t = 20, L = k or 20
    Algorithm 3 hyperparameters chosen by hand; Figure 2 explores sensitivity to L and λ; no theory guides these choices.
  • Cauchy noise scale ε = ε = 0.005
    Regularized working model (6.4) for causal inference; ad hoc choice, and the bias induced by regularization is not quantified.
  • support radius R = R = 10
    Compact support bound in Assumption 4.2, set in simulations; a modeling assumption rather than a fitted parameter.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption X and β are independent and observations are i.i.d.
    Assumption 4.1; central to the identification strategy and used throughout the proofs.
  • domain assumption β has compact support in the closed ball B_R(0) for finite R
    Assumption 4.2; allows restriction of the estimator domain to finite discrete measures and bounds Wasserstein distances.
  • domain assumption The law of eX = X/||X|| has a Haar density lower bounded by τ0 > 0
    Assumption 4.3; used in Lemma A.2 to control the k-NN radius γ(V,k).
  • domain assumption Assumption 4.4 abstract density/tail condition, or the Proposition 4.1 tail condition f_{X2:d}(T) ≥ C_f (1+||T||_2)^{-κ}
    Generalizes Assumption 4.3 to include intercept models; rates depend on the exponent α.
  • standard math One-dimensional W2 between equal-weight empirical measures equals the L2 distance between sorted coordinates (Lemma A.1, Bobkov-Ledoux)
    Used to reformulate sF_k as a quadratic objective in Algorithms 1 and 2.
  • standard math Empirical measure Wasserstein rates of Fournier and Guillin (2015)
    Used in Theorem 4.2 proof to bound the empirical measure terms W_2^2(μβ, μ_N^V) and W_2^2(μβ, ilde μ_k^V).
  • standard math Liutkus et al. (2019) Theorem 2: regularized sliced-Wasserstein minimization yields a Fokker-Planck continuity equation
    Proposition 5.1, the theoretical basis for Algorithm 3; the paper provides no new proof for this extension.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A sliced Wasserstein and diffusion approach to random coefficient models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JTBECK3A

@misc{pith2026250204654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A sliced Wasserstein and diffusion approach to random coefficient models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JTBECK3A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04654}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a new minimum-distance estimator for linear random coefficient models. This estimator integrates the recently advanced sliced Wasserstein distance with the nearest neighbor methods, both of which enhance computational efficiency. We demonstrate that the proposed method is consistent in approximating the true distribution. Moreover, our formulation naturally leads to a diffusion process-based algorithm and is closely connected to treatment effect distribution estimation -- both of which are of independent interest and hold promise for broader applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04654 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Coefficient samples and outputs of Algorithms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Outputs of Algorithm 3 with varying numbers of particles and regularization parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Treatment coefficient samples for Therapies 2–4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arjovsky, M., Chintala, S., and Bottou, L. (2017). Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 214--223. PMLR

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Beran, R. (1993). Semiparametric random coefficient regression models. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics , 45(4):639--654

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    Beran, R., Feuerverger, A., and Hall, P. (1996). On nonparametric estimation of intercept and slope distributions in random coefficient regression. The Annals of Statistics , 24(6):2569--2592

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    and Hall, P

    Beran, R. and Hall, P. (1992). Estimating coefficient distributions in random coefficient regressions. The Annals of Statistics , 20(4):1970 -- 1984

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    and Millar, P

    Beran, R. and Millar, P. W. (1994). Minimum distance estimation in random coefficient regression models. The Annals of Statistics , 22(4):1976 -- 1992

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    and Ledoux, M

    Bobkov, S. and Ledoux, M. (2019). One-dimensional empirical measures, order statistics, and Kantorovich transport distances , volume 261. American Mathematical Society

    2019

  7. [7]

    and Denis, A

    Bonhomme, S. and Denis, A. (2024). Estimating heterogeneous effects: applications to labor economics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01495

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Bonneel, N., Rabin, J., Peyr \'e , G., and Pfister, H. (2015). Sliced and R adon W asserstein barycenters of measures. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision , 51:22--45

    work page 2015

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Bonnotte, N. (2013). Unidimensional and evolution methods for optimal transportation . PhD thesis, Universit \'e Paris Sud-Paris XI; Scuola normale superiore (Pise, Italie)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Bousquet, O., Gelly, S., Tolstikhin, I., Simon-Gabriel, C.-J., and Schoelkopf, B. (2017). From optimal transport to generative modeling: the vegan cookbook. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.07642

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bubeck, S. (2015). Convex optimization: Algorithms and complexity. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 8(3-4):231--357

    2015

  4. [12]

    and Boyd, S

    Diamond, S. and Boyd, S. (2016). CVXPY : A P ython-embedded modeling language for convex optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 17(83):1--5

    2016

  5. [13]

    Dunker, F., Eckle, K., Proksch, K., and Schmidt-Hieber, J. (2019). Tests for qualitative features in the random coefficients model . Electronic Journal of Statistics , 13(2):2257 -- 2306

    2019

  6. [14]

    Dunker, F., Mendoza, E., and Reale, M. (2025). Regularized maximum likelihood estimation for the random coefficients model. Econometric Reviews , 44(2):192--213

    2025

  7. [15]

    and Park, H

    Fan, Y. and Park, H. (2024). Minimum sliced distance estimation in a class of nonregular econometric models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05621

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Z., Boisbunon, A., Chambon, S., Chapel, L., Corenflos, A., Fatras, K., Fournier, N., Gautheron, L., Gayraud, N

    Flamary, R., Courty, N., Gramfort, A., Alaya, M. Z., Boisbunon, A., Chambon, S., Chapel, L., Corenflos, A., Fatras, K., Fournier, N., Gautheron, L., Gayraud, N. T., Janati, H., Rakotomamonjy, A., Redko, I., Rolet, A., Schutz, A., Seguy, V., Sutherland, D. J., Tavenard, R., Ton...

    2021

  9. [17]

    and Guillin, A

    Fournier, N. and Guillin, A. (2015). On the rate of convergence in W asserstein distance of the empirical measure. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 162(3):707--738

    2015

  10. [18]

    T., il Kim, K., and Yang, C

    Fox, J. T., il Kim, K., and Yang, C. (2016). A simple nonparametric approach to estimating the distribution of random coefficients in structural models. Journal of Econometrics , 195(2):236--254

    2016

  11. [19]

    T., Kim, K

    Fox, J. T., Kim, K. I., Ryan, S. P., and Bajari, P. (2011). A simple estimator for the distribution of random coefficients. Quantitative Economics , 2(3):381--418

    2011

  12. [20]

    and Gautier, E

    Gaillac, C. and Gautier, E. (2021). Nonparametric classes for identification in random coefficients models when regressors have limited variation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.11720

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    and Gautier, E

    Gaillac, C. and Gautier, E. (2022). Adaptive estimation in the linear random coefficients model when regressors have limited variation . Bernoulli , 28(1):504 -- 524

    2022

  14. [22]

    M., Katzenstein, D

    Hammer, S. M., Katzenstein, D. A., Hughes, M. D., Gundacker, H., Schooley, R. T., Haubrich, R. H., Henry, W. K., Lederman, M. M., Phair, J. P., Niu, M., et al. (1996). A trial comparing nucleoside monotherapy with combination therapy in hiv-infected adults with cd4 cell counts...

    1996

  15. [23]

    Han, F., Miao, Z., and Shen, Y. (2023). Nonparametric mixture MLE s under G aussian-smoothed optimal transport distance. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 69(12):7823--7835

    2023

  16. [24]

    J., Smith, J., and Clements, N

    Heckman, J. J., Smith, J., and Clements, N. (1997). Making the most out of programme evaluations and social experiments: Accounting for heterogeneity in programme impacts. The Review of Economic Studies , 64(4):487--535

    1997

  17. [25]

    Heiss, F., Hetzenecker, S., and Osterhaus, M. (2022). Nonparametric estimation of the random coefficients model: An elastic net approach. Journal of Econometrics , 229(2):299--321

    2022

  18. [26]

    and Houck, J

    Hildreth, C. and Houck, J. P. (1968). Some estimators for a linear model with random coefficients. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 63(322):584--595

    1968

  19. [27]

    and Lacombe, G

    Hirsch, F. and Lacombe, G. (2012). Elements of functional analysis , volume 192. Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  20. [28]

    Hoderlein, S., Klemel \"a , J., and Mammen, E. (2010). Analyzing the random coefficient model nonparametrically. Econometric Theory , 26(3):804--837

    2010

  21. [29]

    and Holzmann, H

    Hohmann, D. and Holzmann, H. (2016). Weighted angle R adon transform: Convergence rates and efficient estimation. Statistica Sinica , pages 157--175

    2016

  22. [30]

    and Meister, A

    Holzmann, H. and Meister, A. (2020). Rate-optimal nonparametric estimation for random coefficient regression models . Bernoulli , 26(4):2790 -- 2814

    2020

  23. [31]

    and Meister, A

    Holzmann, H. and Meister, A. (2024). Multivariate root-n-consistent smoothing parameter free matching estimators and estimators of inverse density weighted expectations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08494

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    B., Lu, X., Zhang, M., Davidian, M., and Tsiatis, A

    Juraska, M., Gilbert, P. B., Lu, X., Zhang, M., Davidian, M., and Tsiatis, A. A. (2022). speff2trial: Semiparametric Efficient Estimation for a Two-Sample Treatment Effect . R package version 1.0.5

    2022

  25. [33]

    K., and Hoffmann, H

    Kolouri, S., Rohde, G. K., and Hoffmann, H. (2018). Sliced wasserstein distance for learning G aussian mixture models. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3427--3436

    2018

  26. [34]

    and Pendakur, K

    Lewbel, A. and Pendakur, K. (2017). Unobserved preference heterogeneity in demand using generalized random coefficients. Journal of Political Economy , 125(4):1100--1148

    2017

  27. [35]

    M., and Andrew, M

    Li, S., Mnatsakanov, R. M., and Andrew, M. E. (2011). K-nearest neighbor based consistent entropy estimation for hyperspherical distributions. Entropy , 13(3):650--667

    2011

  28. [36]

    and Han, F

    Lim, K. and Han, F. (2024). Smoothed NPMLEs in nonparametric P oisson mixtures and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08808

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Lin, Z., Ding, P., and Han, F. (2023). Estimation based on nearest neighbor matching: from density ratio to average treatment effect. Econometrica , 91(6):2187--2217

    2023

  30. [38]

    and Han, F

    Lin, Z. and Han, F. (2024a). On the consistency of bootstrap for matching estimators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23525

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    and Han, F

    Lin, Z. and Han, F. (2024b). On the failure of the bootstrap for C hatterjee's rank correlation. Biometrika , 111(3):1063--1070

    2024

  32. [40]

    Liutkus, A., Simsekli, U., Majewski, S., Durmus, A., and St \"o ter, F.-R. (2019). Sliced- W asserstein flows: Nonparametric generative modeling via optimal transport and diffusions. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 4104--4113. PMLR

    2019

  33. [41]

    and Gordon, W

    Marcus, M. and Gordon, W. R. (1971). An extension of the M inkowski determinant theorem. Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society , 17(4):321--324

    1971

  34. [42]

    K., Sun, W., and Han, F

    Miao, Z., Kong, W., Vinayak, R. K., Sun, W., and Han, F. (2024). Fisher-Pitman permutation tests based on nonparametric P oisson mixtures with application to single cell genomics. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 119(545):394--406

    2024

  35. [43]

    Pavliotis, G. A. (2014). Stochastic processes and applications , volume 60. Springer

    2014

  36. [44]

    Rubin, H. (1950). Note on random coefficients. In Statistical Inference in Dynamic Economic Models , volume 10, pages 419--421. Wiley New York

    1950

  37. [45]

    Rudin, W. (1964). Principles of mathematical analysis , volume 3. McGraw-Hill New York

    1964

  38. [46]

    Santambrogio, F. (2015). Optimal transport for applied mathematicians. Birk \"a user, NY , 55(58-63):94

    2015

  39. [47]

    Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica , 38(2):311--323

    1970

  40. [48]

    Tanguy, E., Flamary, R., and Delon, J. (2024). Properties of discrete sliced W asserstein losses. Mathematics of Computation , 94:1411--1465

    2024

  41. [49]

    Tolstikhin, I., Bousquet, O., Gelly, S., and Schoelkopf, B. (2018). Wasserstein auto-encoders. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2018

  42. [50]

    Van der Vaart, A. W. (2000). Asymptotic statistics , volume 3. Cambridge University Press

    2000

  43. [51]

    Wolfowitz, J. (1953). Estimation by the minimum distance method. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics , 5(1):9--23

    1953

  44. [52]

    Wolfowitz, J. (1957). The minimum distance method. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 28(1):75--88

    1957

  45. [53]

    Ye, T., Shao, J., and Yi, Y. (2023). Covariate-adjusted log-rank test: guaranteed efficiency gain and universal applicability. Biometrika , 111(2):691--705

    2023

  46. [54]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.