Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Fixed-Point Characterisations of Extremal Distributions under Partial Distributional Constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fixed-point equations locate the support of extremal priors in robust Bayesian inference, reducing constrained optimisation to a discrete system solvable by iteration.

desk verdict The finite-partition fixed-point core is solid and worth knowing, but the paper's broadcast claims about piecewise and Borel-uniform classes collapse on Corollary 2.8, which is false as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04315 v1 pith:2HEH4VBI submitted 2026-08-05 math.ST stat.TH

Kizito Salako , Rabiu Tsoho Muhammad This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STstat.TH MSC 62F1562F3590C3262F30
keywords robustBayesianinferenceextremaldistributionsfixed-pointcharacterisationDinkelbachiterationfractionalprogrammingpartiallyspecifiedpriorsBoole-Fréchetboundsmarginalconstraints
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

This paper tries to establish that a large class of robust inference problems — minimising a ratio of expectations over priors that satisfy partial constraints — can be solved by focusing on discrete extremal priors whose support points are pinned down by fixed-point conditions. The central claim is that for analytic objectives the extremal value is attained by a prior placing mass at points satisfying (E1)–(E2), and that continuous, piecewise continuous, and uniform-limit objectives are handled by approximation with convergence guarantees. A sympathetic reader would care because the result turns a potentially infinite-dimensional optimisation over distributions into a finite system that can be solved numerically, and it identifies where extremal priors concentrate mass.

What carries the argument

The Dinkelbach difference $h_{\phi,f,g}(x) = f(x) - \phi g(x)$. Minimising over each partition cell with a fixed $\phi$ and then updating $\phi$ as the resulting ratio of expectations gives the fixed-point system, and a Dinkelbach-type iteration converges to the extremal value. The second load-bearing object is the finite-support reduction, showing any feasible prior can be replaced by one with at most $n+q$ atoms without increasing the objective.

What would settle it

Construct a pair of bounded Borel functions f, g, one of which is not piecewise continuous with continuous extensions, together with a feasible constraint set D, and exhibit a prior P in D whose ratio is strictly below every value that the claimed fixed-point system can produce; if such a counterexample satisfies the paper's own assumptions, the central characterisation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the generic fractional programme $\inf_{P \in D} \mathbb{E}_P[f]/\mathbb{E}_P[g]$ under partition-mass, overlapping-set, or marginal constraints, extremal values are attained by discrete priors or weak limits of feasible priors whose support points satisfy the Dinkelbach-type fixed-point conditions (E1) $x_i^* \in \arg\min_{x \in \overline{K_i}} (f(x) - \phi^* g(x))$ and (E2) $\phi^* = \sum_i f(x_i^*) p_i / \sum_i g(x_i^*) p_i$. The same characterisation is extended by approximation to continuous, bounded piecewise continuous, and uniform-limit objective classes, with explicit convergence of extremal values and weak convergence of extremal priors.

Load-bearing premise

The whole chain rests on treating each piece of a piecewise-defined function as having a continuous extension to the closure of its piece, and on treating the Borel partition cells as closed when the connectivity argument for the approximation error is applied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, any partial-prior robust inference problem of the fractional expectation type reduces to solving the finite system (E1)–(E2), and the extremal prior is discrete or a limit of feasible discrete priors.
  • Overlapping measurable-set constraints and multiple marginal-density constraints are covered by the same reduction, since both can be rewritten as finite partition or product-cell problems.
  • Continuous and piecewise continuous objectives are solved by analytic approximation, with the approximating extremal values converging to the true infimum and support points converging along subsequences.
  • The framework gives a route to practical computation: run the Dinkelbach iteration with coordinatewise minimisation over each cell, then read off the extremal prior from the limiting support points.
  • The results recover and unify known solutions, including the k-out-of-n Boole–Fréchet bounds, robust VaR aggregation with fixed marginals, the Laurence–Wang basket-option lower bound, and interval-identified robust posterior bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's main theorems imply a general recipe elsewhere: for any fractional expectation problem with finitely many linear prior constraints, the extremal support lies among the minimisers of a Dinkelbach difference, so one can solve the problem by scanning candidate support locations and fixed-point iteration without designing bespoke arguments per application. This extends beyond the paper's w
  • The value-quantisation approximation in Theorem 2.15 suggests a testable computational shortcut that the paper only partially exploits: for any bounded Borel f and g, bounding f and g from below and above by quantised simple functions yields certified upper and lower bounds on the extremal value at every approximation level, so convergence can be monitored without knowing the limit in advance.
  • The attractor/repeller interpretation of fixed points opens a route to sensitivity analysis that the paper leaves implicit: the sign of the Dinkelbach difference close to a fixed point indicates whether small perturbations of the prior constraints will shift extremal mass towards or away from a given support location, which could be used to rank the influence of each constraint.
  • The exchange fixed-point formulation for fixed-marginal problems suggests a unified test for extremality in any coupling problem: a prior is extremal exactly when every marginal-preserving mass exchange fails to increase the target probability, which could be checked empirically at the level of simulated exchanges in higher-dimensional examples not treated by the paper's closed forms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper develops a methodological framework for robust inference problems of the form inf_{P∈D} E_P[f(X)]/E_P[g(X)], where D is a class of Borel probability measures on K=[0,1]^d constrained by fixed partition masses, overlapping measurable-set masses, prescribed (density) marginals, or combinations thereof. The principal claims are: (i) a finite-support reduction (Proposition 2.2) showing that the infimum over D equals the infimum over discrete priors with at most n+q support points, with a detailed proof via Richter's theorem and a rank-pruning argument; (ii) fixed-point characterisations of extremal support locations, (E1)-(E2), for analytic objectives (Theorem 2.9), extended by approximation to continuous (Theorem 2.11), bounded piecewise-continuous (Theorem 2.13), and uniform-limit (Theorem 2.15) classes; (iii) a Dinkelbach-type computational pipeline (Algorithms 2.10, 2.14) with convergence proofs; and (iv) several worked applications, including Bernoulli reliability priors (Theorem 3.1), generalised Boole-Fréchet bounds (Theorem 3.2), interval-identified econometric models (Theorem 3.3), VaR aggregation (Theorem 3.4 and Corollary 3.5), and basket options (Theorem 3.6). All proofs are provided in the appendices at the end of the manuscript.

Significance. If the main theorems held as stated, this would be a substantial contribution: the paper unifies a wide family of robust-Bayesian and fixed-marginal optimisation problems under one fixed-point reduction, identifies where extremal mass is placed, and provides a computational route with certified convergence. The strengths are genuine: Proposition 2.2 is proved in full detail with an explicit support bound; Theorem 2.9's analytic characterisation is self-contained and correctly linked to Dinkelbach iteration, whose monotone convergence is established in Appendix H; the applications in Sections 3.3-3.7 exhibit real breadth; and there are no fitted parameters in the central derivations. However, the paper as submitted overclaims the piecewise-continuous case: Corollary 2.8, advertised as the convergence result for piecewise-defined objectives, is false as stated (a counterexample is given below), and the 'exhaustiveness' proof in Appendix K has a gap. The remaining theorems appear to be unaffected, and the errors are localisable, so the claims are likely repairable within the manuscript's scope, but the current text is not correct as it stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 2.13 / Appendix K] Corollary 2.8 is false as stated, and its proof is invalid. Take K=[0,1]^2, M=2, uniform marginals (rho_1=rho_2=1), and the fixed Borel partition E_1=Q×[0,1], E_2=Q^c×[0,1], with f=1_{E_2} and g≡1. Letting the B^{(m)}_{j,r} be the dyadic partitions (connected intervals), every refined atom R^{(m)}_τ=C^{(m)}_ν∩E_ℓ is a level set of f, so ~ω_f(m)=~ω_g(m)=0 for all m, satisfying the corollary's hypotheses. But φ* = inf_{P∈D} P(E_2) = 1, since every P∈D has Lebesgue first marginal and λ(Q^c)=1. On the other hand, the measure P_m=μ_m×λ, with μ_m uniform on one rational point in each dyadic interval, lies in D^{(m)} and satisfies P_m(E_2)=0, so ~φ_m=0 for every m; hence ~φ_m does not converge to φ*, contradicting both the convergence claim and the error bound in item (2). The source of the error is in Appendix F, where the family {C^{(m)}_ν∩E_ℓ} is declared 'finite and closed'; the E_ℓ are only Borel, not closed, and the intersection-graph connectedness argument for the connected set C^{(m)}_ν fails exactly for partitions with dense cells. This is not a mere missing hypothesis: the counterexample satisfies every stated assumption. The corollary must be repaired (e.g., by requiring the E_ℓ to be closed, or by replacing the chain argument with a measure-theoretic bound), withdrawn, or explicitly isolated from the rest of the methodology; Section 2.1 currently advertises it as the convergence result for piecewise-defined objectives.
  2. [Theorem 2.15 (iii)-(iv), Section 3.5 remark] The proof of the 'exhaustiveness' claim M_i(φ*)=C_i(φ*) in Appendix K is not valid as written. To show M_i(φ*)⊆C_i(φ*), the proof perturbs the Dinkelbach difference to h(x)+η_m‖x−x*‖² and asserts that analytic approximants to the perturbed objective produce minimisers converging to x*. But C_i(φ*) is defined as the collection of subsequential limits of global minimisers of Dinkelbach differences formed from analytic approximating sequences that converge uniformly to the unperturbed extensions ~f_{i,ℓ}, ~g_{i,ℓ}. Approximants to the pair (f+η_m‖·−x*‖², g) do not converge to the unperturbed extensions; a diagonal argument with η_m→0 would be needed and is not supplied, and the perturbation changes the location of the global minimiser in a way that is not controlled. Since the remark after Theorem 2.13 ('analytic approximation is exhaustive: ... there are no extremal support candidates outside the class of extremal support points obtained from analytic approximations') relies on this equality, the claim needs either a corrected proof or a reformulation that states only what is actually established.
  3. [Theorem 2.15] Theorem 2.15(iii) asserts that the limiting tuple (x*_1,...,x*_n) 'is the support of some extremal prior P*', but the proof in Appendix L only establishes that P* := Σ_i p_i δ_{x*_i} is the weak limit of the extremal priors P_{m_k} of the approximating problems and that E_{Q_k}[f]/E_{Q_k}[g]→φ* for feasible Q_k⇒P*. For discontinuous objectives in the uniform-limit class, weak convergence does not imply value attainment; the paper itself acknowledges this in the remark following Theorem 3.3 ('a weak limit of these approximating priors may itself fail to attain the robust bound'). Consequently, P* is not shown to be extremal in the value sense, nor is it shown to satisfy the fixed-point conditions (E1)-(E2) for the limiting pair (f,g). The theorem's statement and the corresponding remarks in Section 2.2 should be reformulated to say that P* is a weak-limit point of extremal priors of the approximating problems, with the extremal value obtained in the limit, unless additional regularity is imposed.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract / throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'whereextremal' in the abstract, missing spaces in the Figure 18 caption ('Attractory∗ and repellery∗∗ fromh(x) =ϕ ∗'), and inconsistent closure notation (K_i vs \bar{K}_i) in Theorem 2.9 and equation (6). These should be corrected in revision.
  2. [Theorem 2.9 / equation (6)] In the statement of Theorem 2.9 and in equation (6), the notation for the closures of the K_i is inconsistent: the text defines \bar{K}_i but the displays use K_i for both the original sets and their closures. Please standardise, for example by writing \bar{K}_i for closures throughout.
  3. [Remark after Theorem 2.15] The equality R_{2.13}^{||·||∞} = B_b^+(K) is asserted in a remark rather than proved; the inclusion S_b^+(K) ⊆ R_{2.13}^{||·||∞} is the key step and deserves a one-line justification (constant functions on arbitrary Borel pieces admit continuous extensions to the closures). Because the refined-atom discretisation of Corollary 2.8 fails for arbitrary Borel partitions, the remark should also state explicitly that the level-set approximation route used here is a different construction.
  4. [Section 3.1 / Theorem 3.1] Theorem 3.1 and its proof are reproduced verbatim from Salako and Muhammad (2025); the authors should state at the start of Section 3.1 which parts of the paper are new contributions and which are restatements within the new fixed-point framing, so that the novelty of Section 3.1 is unambiguous.
  5. [Appendix F] The hypothesis that the B^{(m)}_{j,r} are connected in Corollary 2.8 is present only to support the invalid chain argument; if the corollary is repaired by imposing closedness or additional regularity on the E_ℓ, the proof should state explicitly why connectedness is (or is not) still needed.
  6. [Theorem 2.15 (iii)] Recommend rephrasing 'is the support of some extremal prior P*' to 'is the support of the weak limit P* of extremal priors of the approximating problems', since value attainment is not proved and is generally false for discontinuous Borel objectives (compare the remark after Theorem 3.3).
  7. [Proposition 2.2] In the proof of Proposition 2.2, the case N≤n+q is dispatched with 'there is then nothing more to prove'; since Q_0 may have fewer than n+q support points, the sentence should say explicitly that the support-size bound is then satisfied automatically (zero-weight terms are ignored in the definition of D^{(r)}_{p,m}).
  8. [Supplementary material / References] The supplementary material is referenced as 'Salako and Muhammad (2026)' but consists of the appendices of the present paper; the journal submission should clarify how these appendices will be provided to referees and readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fixed-point theorems are proved self-contained; the only flagged item is a transparent, non-load-bearing reproduction of a prior same-author proof in an application section.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and does not reduce any prediction to its inputs. Proposition 2.2 gives an explicit finite-support reduction, and Propositions 2.3-2.6 reduce overlapping-set and marginal-density constraints to equivalent discrete problems with explicit oscillation-error bounds. Theorem 2.9 derives the (E1)-(E2) fixed-point conditions from the attained infimum of the discrete objective using separability of the Dinkelbach residual; (E2) is the objective-value identity, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The continuous, piecewise-continuous, and uniform-closure extensions in Theorems 2.11, 2.13, and 2.15 are proved by approximation arguments with explicit convergence estimates, and the applications either re-derive stated published results or solve the paper's own constrained problems with proofs in the appendices. The only self-referential item is Appendix M, which says that the proof of Theorem 3.1 is reproduced from Salako and Muhammad (2025), plus the reproduced Figures 12 and 17; the full proof is contained in the appendix, so this citation is not load-bearing for the paper's central methodological claims. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter is imported from the authors' prior work to force the stated conclusions, and no central claim reduces to an external self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central framework introduces no free parameters fitted to data and no new physical or mathematical entities. The examples use illustrative constants such as epsilon, b, theta, and n, but those are not fitted to the claims. The assumptions listed are the standard measure-theoretic setup plus the technical regularity conditions needed for the discretization and closure arguments.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption K = [0,1]^d is partitioned into Borel measurable sets, f and g are nonnegative, and E_P[g] > 0 for all admissible P.
    This is the standing setup of Problem (1) in Section 1 and is used throughout the paper.
  • standard math Stone-Weierstrass: any continuous function on compact K can be uniformly approximated by analytic functions.
    Used in Theorem 2.11 to reduce continuous objectives to analytic ones.
  • domain assumption The oscillations omega_f(m) and omega_g(m) tend to zero in Propositions 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6.
    These dominance conditions are assumed, not derived, and they drive the convergence of the discretized extremal values.
  • domain assumption Existence of measurable kernels nu_{tau,u} supported on the vertical sections of refined atoms in Proposition 2.5.
    This kernel existence is an extra regularity condition needed to lift discretized solutions back to the marginal-constrained class.
  • standard math Choquet capacitability theorem for analytic sets.
    Used in the proofs of Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 3.4 to build compact cores and vanishing-leakage sequences.
  • domain assumption Each piece of the partition in Theorem 2.13 admits continuous extensions of f and g to its closure.
    This defines the piecewise class R_2.13 and is necessary for the refined Dinkelbach minimum to be attained on closures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fixed-Point Characterisations of Extremal Distributions under Partial Distributional Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2HEH4VBI

@misc{pith2026260804315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fixed-Point Characterisations of Extremal Distributions under Partial Distributional Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2HEH4VBI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04315}
}
read the original abstract

We present a methodological framework for solving robust inference problems with partially specified distributions over measurable subsets of a parameter space. Partial specifications define a set of admissible distributions. The goal is to determine extremal values (over these admissible distributions) for statistical quantities, where these quantities---these objective functions---are ratios of expectations of analytic functions, continuous functions, piecewise continuous functions, and uniform limits of piecewise continuous functions. We show that extremal values are approached by sequences of admissible distributions, whose limiting extremal distributions are characterised by fixed-point conditions on their support locations. This characterises where extremal distributions place probability mass and yields a practical computational framework for solving the corresponding optimisation problems. We establish convergence and asymptotic properties of the resulting extremal distributions and extremal objective function values. This work extends robust inference methods (e.g. robust Bayesian inference) by combining extremal-distribution reduction, fixed-point characterisation, and approximation-based analysis within a unified framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04315 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of Proposition 2.3 on K = [0, 1]2 . Panels (a)–(c) show three overlapping measurable sets K˜ 1, K˜ 2, K˜ 3 ⊆ K, chosen so that K˜ 1 ∪ K˜ 2 ∪ K˜ 3 = K. Panel (d) shows the nonempty atoms AI = T i∈I K˜ i  ∩ T i /∈I K˜ c i  which partition K. Boundary segments are assigned according to a fixed Borel, or half-open, convention. In particular, by considering no moment constraints (so q = 0), (2) implies P… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of Proposition 2.6 for the case K = U1 × U2. Each panel shows the product domain together with continuous marginal densities ρ1 and ρ2. The black grid lines indicate partitions {B (m) 1,i } of U1 and {B (m) 2,i } of U2, which induce the finitely constrained approximation problems D(m) and the corresponding product-cell atomisation. In panel (b), the refined grid illustrates a later approximation level m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Geometric illustration of the embedded-manifold case in Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic illustration of an extremal prior in the analytic case of Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Methodological pipeline for solving Problem ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Approximators for two F functions for (13). The black curves approximate the limiting dashed F functions. The indicators 1S equal 1 when boolean S is true, and equal 0 otherwise. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Converging infima from (13) using the approximations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Convergence of infima from approximations when ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Two uniform-limit constructions: Figure 9a shows piecewise continuous approxima￾tions (Theorem 2.15). Figure 9b shows analytic approximants (Theorem 2.11). 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 m infimum value ϕ ∗ m ϕ ∗ (a) Numerical convergence of ϕ ∗ m fo…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Numerical convergence of (13) infima using the sequence of approximations illus￾trated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: For (14), an illustration of a step-function approximation fm(x, λ) to f(x, λ) and numerical illustration of convergence of infima. In Figure 11a, over the x–λ region R with b = 10−4 (see assumptions stated for (14)), the nonzero region x ⩽ b is partitioned into eight…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: An illustration of the j1 < j2, ϕ ∗ = ϕ ∗ 1 extremal-prior form in (16). Reproduced from Salako and Muhammad (2025). Theorem 3.2. Let A1, . . . , An be marginal events on a common probability space, with 0 < p1 < · · · < pn < 1, P(Ai) = pi for i = 1, . . . , n, and k …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fibrewise repair for Theorem 3.3. The unit square is U ×V = [0, 1]2 . The compact set K is shown in grey and the event set C ⊆ K in darker grey. Outside the displayed interval S c C , the fibres of C coincide with the corresponding fibres of K; within S c C = {φ ∈ U :…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Compact-core and dyadic-cell illustration for Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Dyadic anti-diagonal branch selection in the basket-payoff construction. Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The 2-state Markov chain structure used in Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: How ϕ ∗ , y∗∗, and y∗ are related by h(x) = (1−x) m  r−x(m+k+r) r−x(k+r)  . Reproduced from Salako and Muhammad (2025). As a particular example, the components of Theorem 3.1’s fixed–point triplet — i.e. ϕ ∗ , y∗∗, y∗ — are related by the function h : [0, 1] \ { r r…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: An example graph of h(x) = (1 − x) m  r−x(m+k+r) r−x(k+r)  . Reproduced from Salako and Muhammad (2025). Consequently, to minimise ϕ, all of the xi must be assigned in their respective Ki as dictated by a “source” and “sink” pair. All xi to the left of the “source” …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Illustration of possible probability mass placement: case I. Reproduced from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p080_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Illustration of possible probability mass placement: case II. Reproduced from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p081_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Illustration of possible probability mass placement: case III. Reproduced from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p081_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Impact of Operational-Data Fidelity when Assessing Safety-Critical Autonomous-Vehicle Software

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Coarse failure data without false-positive vs false-negative labels can make conservative Bayesian reliability claims for AV software dangerously optimistic, sometimes infinitely so after a single failure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    and Dutuit, Y

    Innal, F. and Dutuit, Y. and Rauzy, A. and Signoret, J.-P. , title =. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability , year =. doi:10.1243/1748006XJRR278 , url =

    work page doi:10.1243/1748006xjrr278

  2. [2]

    Robust Bayesian analysis under generalized moments conditions , journal =

    Bruno Betr. Robust Bayesian analysis under generalized moments conditions , journal =. 1994 , volume =. doi:10.1016/0378-3758(94)90022-1 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/0378-3758(94)90022-1 1994

  3. [3]

    The Annals of Statistics , author =

    Statistical. The Annals of Statistics , author =. 1973 , pages =

    work page 1973

  4. [4]

    Sensitivity in Bayesian Statistics: The Prior and the Likelihood , urldate =

    Michael Lavine , journal =. Sensitivity in Bayesian Statistics: The Prior and the Likelihood , urldate =

    work page

  5. [5]

    Bayesian Robustness for Classes of Bidimensional Priors with Given Marginals , booktitle =

    Brunero Liseo and El\'. Bayesian Robustness for Classes of Bidimensional Priors with Given Marginals , booktitle =. 1996 , pages =. doi:10.1214/lnms/1215453063 , url =

    arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    Conditional -minimax actions under convex losses , journal =

    Bruno Betr. Conditional -minimax actions under convex losses , journal =. 1992 , volume =. doi:10.1080/03610929208830830 , url =

    work page doi:10.1080/03610929208830830 1992

  7. [7]

    Robust Bayesian Analysis , editor =

    Brani Vidakovic , title =. Robust Bayesian Analysis , editor =. 2000 , doi =

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Wolpert , title =

    Michael Lavine and Larry Wasserman and Robert L. Wolpert , title =. Journal of the American Statistical Association , year =. doi:10.1080/01621459.1991.10475139 , url =

    arXiv 1991

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Classes of bidimensional priors specified on a collection of sets: Bayesian robustness , journal =

    El\'. Classes of bidimensional priors specified on a collection of sets: Bayesian robustness , journal =. 1995 , volume =. doi:10.1016/0378-3758(94)00134-H , url =

    1995 doi

  2. [10]

    2025 , eprint =

    Constructive Proofs of Generalized Boole--Frechet Bounds: A Dynamic Programming Approach , author =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

  3. [11]

    1939 , note =

    Karush, William , title =. 1939 , note =

    1939

  4. [12]

    Kuhn, H. W. and Tucker, A. W. , title =. Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability , editor =

  5. [13]

    , title =

    Nocedal, Jorge and Wright, Stephen J. , title =. 2006 , doi =

    2006

  6. [14]

    The American Mathematical Monthly , number =

    Best Possible Inequalities for the Probability of a Logical Function of Events , urldate =. The American Mathematical Monthly , number =. doi:10.2307/2313491 , author =

    doi

  7. [15]

    The Annals of Statistics , year =

    Whitt, Ward , title =. The Annals of Statistics , year =. doi:10.1214/aos/1176343660 , url =

  8. [16]

    , title =

    Karr, Alan F. , title =. Mathematics of Operations Research , year =. doi:10.1287/moor.8.1.74 , month = feb, publisher =

    doi

  9. [17]

    Econometrica , volume =

    Giacomini, Raffaella and Kitagawa, Toru , title =. Econometrica , volume =. 2021 , month = jul, doi =

    2021

  10. [18]

    Das maximale Signifikanzniveau des Tests: ``Lehne H_

    R. Das maximale Signifikanzniveau des Tests: ``Lehne H_. Metrika , year =

  11. [19]

    2026 , note =

    Salako, Kizito and Muhammad, Rabiu Tsoho , title =. 2026 , note =

    2026

  12. [20]

    and Cooper, W

    Charnes, A. and Cooper, W. W. , title =. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly , year =. doi:10.1002/nav.3800090303 , url =

    doi

  13. [21]

    arXiv preprint , year =

    Kizito Salako and Rabiu Tsoho Muhammad , title =. arXiv preprint , year =. 2511.07038 , archivePrefix =

  14. [22]

    Management Science , year =

    Siegfried Schaible , title =. Management Science , year =. doi:10.1287/mnsc.22.8.868 , issn =

    doi

  15. [23]

    SafeComp 95 , editor =

    Bev Littlewood and David Wright , title =. SafeComp 95 , editor =. 1995 , doi =

    1995

  16. [24]

    , title =

    Wasserman, Larry and Lavine, Michael and Wolpert, Robert L. , title =. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , year =. doi:10.1016/0378-3758(93)90109-J , url =

    doi

  17. [25]

    Richter, Hans , title =. Bl. Deutsch. Ges. Versicherungsmath. , volume =. 1957 , pages =

    1957

  18. [26]

    Mathematics of Operations Research , year =

    Winkler, Gerhard , title =. Mathematics of Operations Research , year =

  19. [27]

    , title =

    Cozman, Fabio G. , title =. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , year =

  20. [28]

    2004 , isbn =

    Boyd, Stephen and Vandenberghe, Lieven , title =. 2004 , isbn =

    2004

  21. [29]

    Annales de l'Institut Fourier , volume =

    Choquet, Gustave , title =. Annales de l'Institut Fourier , volume =. 1954 , pages =. doi:10.5802/aif.53 , mrnumber =

    1954 doi

  22. [30]

    and Schm

    di Dio, Philipp J. and Schm. The multidimensional truncated Moment Problem: The Moment Cone , year =. 1809.00584 , archivePrefix =

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , volume =

    Bev Littlewood and David Wright , title =. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , volume =. 2007 , doi =

    2007

  24. [32]

    Popov , title =

    Peter T. Popov , title =. Reliability Engineering & System Safety , volume =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  25. [33]

    Birkhoff, Garrett , title =. Univ. Nac. Tucum

  26. [34]

    Contributions to the Theory of Games, Volume II , series =

    von Neumann, John , title =. Contributions to the Theory of Games, Volume II , series =. 1953 , url=

    1953

  27. [35]

    Safety-Critical Systems: The Convergence of High Tech and Human Factors , editor =

    Neil, Martin and Littlewood, Bev and Fenton, Norman , title =. Safety-Critical Systems: The Convergence of High Tech and Human Factors , editor =. 1996 , address =. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-1480-2_5 , url =

    1996 doi

  28. [36]

    Sharp Upper and Lower Bounds for Basket Options , journal =

    Laurence, Peter and Wang,. Sharp Upper and Lower Bounds for Basket Options , journal =. 2005 , volume =. doi:10.1080/1350486042000325179 , url =

    2005 doi

  29. [37]

    and Klinz, Bettina and Rudolf, R

    Burkard, Rainer E. and Klinz, Bettina and Rudolf, R. Perspectives of Monge Properties in Optimization , journal =. 1996 , doi =

    1996

  30. [38]

    Model uncertainty and

    Embrechts, Paul and Puccetti, Giovanni and R. Model uncertainty and. Journal of Banking & Finance , volume =. 2013 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.03.014 , url =

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    Management Science , year =

    Dinkelbach, Wolfgang , title =. Management Science , year =. doi:10.1287/mnsc.13.7.492 , url =

    doi

  32. [40]

    Bishop and Robin E

    Peter G. Bishop and Robin E. Bloomfield , title =. Safety and Reliability , year =. doi:10.1080/09617353.2000.11690698 , url =

    2000

  33. [41]

    Cock and Philip Derrin and Dhammika Elkaduwe and Kai Engelhardt and Rafal Kolanski and Michael Norrish and Thomas Sewell and Harvey Tuch and Simon Winwood , title =

    Gerwin Klein and Kevin Elphinstone and Gernot Heiser and June Andronick and David A. Cock and Philip Derrin and Dhammika Elkaduwe and Kai Engelhardt and Rafal Kolanski and Michael Norrish and Thomas Sewell and Harvey Tuch and Simon Winwood , title =. Proceedings of the 22nd. 2...

    2009

  34. [42]

    Demonstrating software reliability using possibly correlated tests: Insights from a conservative Bayesian approach , journal=

    Salako,Kizito and Zhao,Xingyu , year=. Demonstrating software reliability using possibly correlated tests: Insights from a conservative Bayesian approach , journal=

  35. [43]

    Quality and Reliability Engineering International , volume=

    On the use of imprecise probabilities in reliability assessments , author=. Quality and Reliability Engineering International , volume=. 2004 , publisher=

    2004

  36. [44]

    and Laprie, J.-C

    Avizienis, A. and Laprie, J.-C. and Randell, B. and Landwehr, C. , journal=. Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing , year=

  37. [45]

    and Coolen, Frank P

    Utkin, Lev V. and Coolen, Frank P. A. Imprecise Reliability: An Introductory Overview. Computational Intelligence in Reliability Engineering: New Metaheuristics, Neural and Fuzzy Techniques in Reliability. 2007. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-37372-8\_10

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    Validation of ultra-high dependability

    B. Littlewood and L. Strigini , journal =. “Validation of ultra-high dependability...” – 20 years on , year =

  39. [47]

    1993 , issue_date =

    Littlewood, Bev and Strigini, Lorenzo , title =. 1993 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/163359.163373 , journal =

    1993

  40. [48]

    1991 , publisher=

    Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities , author=. 1991 , publisher=

    1991

  41. [49]

    2014 , publisher =

    Introduction to Imprecise Probabilities , author =. 2014 , publisher =

    2014

  42. [50]

    and Finelli, G.B

    Butler, R.W. and Finelli, G.B. , journal=. The infeasibility of quantifying the reliability of life-critical real-time software , year=

  43. [51]

    2000 , isbn =

    Littlewood, Bev and Strigini, Lorenzo , title =. 2000 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/336512.336551 , booktitle =

    2000

  44. [52]

    Bootstrapping confidence in future safety from past safe operation , year=

    Bishop, Peter and Povyakalo, Andrey and Strigini, Lorenzo , booktitle=. Bootstrapping confidence in future safety from past safe operation , year=

  45. [53]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , volume=

    Robust Bayesian Analysis with -Contaminations Partially Known , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , volume=. 1991 , publisher=

    1991

  46. [54]

    IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , volume=

    Some conservative stopping rules for the operational testing of safety critical software , author=. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , volume=. 1997 , publisher=

    1997

  47. [55]

    Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security: 32nd International Conference, SAFECOMP 2013, Toulouse, France, September 24-27, 2013

    Software fault-freeness and reliability predictions , author=. Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security: 32nd International Conference, SAFECOMP 2013, Toulouse, France, September 24-27, 2013. Proceedings 32 , pages=. 2013 , organization=

    2013

  48. [56]

    Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , author =

    Posterior Robustness with more than One Sampling Model , volume =. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , author =. 1994 , pages =

    1994

  49. [57]

    1991 , pages =

    Journal of the American Statistical Association , author =. 1991 , pages =

    1991

  50. [58]

    Salako and X

    K. Salako and X. Zhao , journal =. The Unnecessity of Assuming Statistically Independent Tests in Bayesian Software Reliability Assessments , year =. doi:10.1109/TSE.2022.3233802 , publisher =

    2022

  51. [59]

    The Unnecessity of Assuming Statistically Independent Tests in Bayesian Software Reliability Assessments , year=

    Salako, Kizito and Zhao, Xingyu , journal=. The Unnecessity of Assuming Statistically Independent Tests in Bayesian Software Reliability Assessments , year=

  52. [60]

    Assessing safety-critical systems from operational testing:

    Zhao, Xingyu and Salako, Kizito and Strigini, Lorenzo and Robu, Valentin and Flynn, David , year =. Assessing safety-critical systems from operational testing:. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106393 , journal =

    2020

  53. [61]

    and Robu, V

    Zhao, X. and Robu, V. and Flynn, D. and Salako, K. and Strigini, L. , year =. Assessing the. the 30th

  54. [62]

    Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , volume=

    Berger,James and Moreno,Elías , year=. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , volume=

  55. [63]

    An Overview of Robust

    Berger, James O , year=. An Overview of Robust. Test , volume=

  56. [64]

    Berger, James O , year=. Robust. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , volume=

  57. [65]

    On reliability assessment when a software-based system is replaced by a thought-to-be-better one , volume =

    Littlewood, Bev and Salako, Kizito and Strigini, Lorenzo and Zhao, Xingyu , year =. On reliability assessment when a software-based system is replaced by a thought-to-be-better one , volume =. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2019.106752 , journal =

    2019

  58. [66]

    Conservative

    Salako, Kizito and Strigini, Lorenzo and Zhao, Xingyu , year =. Conservative. 51st

  59. [67]

    Conservative claims about the probability of perfection of software-based systems , booktitle =

    Zhao, Xingyu and Littlewood, Bev and Povyakalo, Andrey and Wright, David , year =. Conservative claims about the probability of perfection of software-based systems , booktitle =

  60. [68]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety , author =

    Modeling the probability of failure on demand (pfd) of a 1-out-of-2 system in which one channel is ``quasi-perfect'' , volume =. Reliability Engineering & System Safety , author =. 2017 , pages =

    2017

  61. [69]

    Conservative claims for the probability of perfection of a software-based system using operational experience of previous similar systems , volume =

    Zhao, Xingyu and Littlewood, Bev and Povyakalo, Andrey and Strigini, Lorenzo and Wright, David , year =. Conservative claims for the probability of perfection of a software-based system using operational experience of previous similar systems , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10...

    doi

  62. [70]

    Software fault-freeness and reliability predictions , isbn =

    Strigini, Lorenzo and Povyakalo, Andrey , year =. Software fault-freeness and reliability predictions , isbn =. Computer

  63. [71]

    IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , author =

    Toward a formalism for conservative claims about the dependability of software-based systems , volume =. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , author =. 2011 , pages =

    2011

  64. [72]

    Loss-Size and Reliability Trade-Offs Amongst Diverse Redundant Binary Classifiers , booktitle=

    Salako, Kizito , editor=. Loss-Size and Reliability Trade-Offs Amongst Diverse Redundant Binary Classifiers , booktitle=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

Pith tools

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