pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.09007 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-11 · 🧮 math.ST · math.PR· stat.ME· stat.OT· stat.TH

Possibilistic inferential models: a review

Ryan Martin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 04:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.ST math.PRstat.MEstat.OTstat.TH
keywords inferential modelspossibility theoryimprecise probabilityuncertainty quantificationfrequentist reliabilityconditional inferencereview
0
0 comments X

The pith

Possibilistic inferential models construct reliable uncertainty measures from data while supporting conditional imprecise reasoning.

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

This review establishes that possibilistic inferential models can be built directly from data and prior structure to quantify uncertainty about unknowns. The models achieve strong reliability guarantees that hold across repeated applications in the frequentist sense, without requiring that all uncertainty statements take the form of precise probabilities. They also permit fully conditional updates that resemble Bayesian reasoning yet operate through possibility measures and imprecise probabilities. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach seeks to combine the validity guarantees of classical statistics with the flexibility of non-probabilistic or set-valued uncertainty representations. The paper further presents a generalization that creates links to resampling techniques and conformal prediction.

Core claim

The paper reviews recent developments showing that possibilistic inferential models, constructed via possibility distributions, deliver provably reliable data-driven uncertainty quantification, maintain frequentist-style coverage properties, and enable fully conditional inference in the style of Bayesian updating but using imprecise probabilities, with a generalization extending these constructions to connect with bootstrap and conformal prediction methods.

What carries the argument

Possibilistic inferential models that represent uncertainty through possibility distributions and derive inference procedures from them.

If this is right

  • The models can be applied in settings where specifying a single probability distribution is difficult or undesirable.
  • Reliability guarantees hold under weaker assumptions than those needed for traditional probabilistic inference.
  • Fully conditional inference becomes available without committing to precise prior or posterior distributions.
  • The generalization integrates with existing resampling and prediction techniques for wider use in statistics and machine learning.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This framework could support software defaults that output interval-valued or set-valued inferences for added robustness in applied work.
  • Connections to other non-additive uncertainty theories might yield hybrid methods that inherit reliability from one source and expressiveness from another.
  • Empirical tests in high-dimensional or nonparametric problems could clarify whether the frequentist properties scale without additional tuning.

Load-bearing premise

Possibility theory supplies a framework rich enough to deliver both frequentist reliability guarantees and flexible conditional reasoning when linked to imprecise probability ideas.

What would settle it

Repeated simulation experiments in which the empirical frequency of the true parameter falling inside the derived possibility sets drops below the nominal levels claimed by the model would undermine the reliability properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09007 by Ryan Martin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A lower bound on the (empirical) false confidence rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of a possibility contour θ 7→ πz(θ) and how the possibility measure Πz is determined from it. Here, the hypothesis H is the interval [3, 5] and the maximum value Πz(H) on contour is highlighted. Horizontal dashed line at α = 0.1 determines the 90% confidence interval C0.1(z) in (5). quantification—one apparently has no control on the false confidence rate. But the rela￾tive likelihood serves a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Approximating the IM contour’s α-level set Cα(z) by an ellipse C σ α (z) with a “good” choice of σ (solid) and with a “bad” choice (dashed). Note that R(Z, θ) is a pivot when Z consists of iid samples from Pθ. Although the distribution doesn’t have a name or a simple form, it is easy to simulate and, therefore, the validification step can easily be done via Monte Carlo. A plot of the possibility contour πz… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of the joint IM contour for Θ = (Θ1, Θ2) in the two examples presented in Section 3.6. In both plots, the solid line is the possibilistic IM contour and the gray points are samples from the Jeffreys prior Bayes posterior. Dashed line in Panel (b) is explained in the text. ing their proposal as a unification of the frequentist and Bayesian extremes. But this unification argument doesn’t challenge the s… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plots of the marginal IM contours—extension-based (dashed line) and profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of the o-ring data along with the fitted failure probability curve. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel (a) shows the samples of (Θ1, Θ2) from Q ⋆ z and the corresponding ap￾proximate possibility contour. Panel (b) shows the approximate possibility contour for Φ, the log odds of an o-ring failure at 31 degrees. From here it’s straightforward to evaluate the possibilistic IM contour function, but expensive to do so over a dense grid of points in the simplex when K is 2 or more. Fortunately, the computat… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Level sets of the marginal possibilistic IM contour for Φ in the multinomial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

An inferential model (IM) is a model describing the construction of provably reliable, data-driven uncertainty quantification and inference about relevant unknowns. IMs and Fisher's fiducial argument have similar objectives, but a fundamental distinction between the two is that the former doesn't require that uncertainty quantification be probabilistic, offering greater flexibility and allowing for a proof of its reliability. Important recent developments have been made thanks in part to newfound connections with the imprecise probability literature, in particular, possibility theory. The brand of possibilistic IMs studied here are straightforward to construct, have very strong frequentist-like reliability properties, and offer fully conditional, Bayesian-like (imprecise) probabilistic reasoning. This paper reviews these key recent developments, describing the new theory, methods, and computational tools. A generalization of the basic possibilistic IM is also presented, making new and unexpected connections with ideas in modern statistics and machine learning, e.g., bootstrap and conformal prediction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews possibilistic inferential models (IMs), which construct data-driven uncertainty quantification using possibility measures rather than probabilities. It describes their straightforward construction, strong frequentist-style reliability properties, support for fully conditional imprecise-probabilistic reasoning via connections to the imprecise probability literature, and presents a generalization linking these models to bootstrap and conformal prediction techniques.

Significance. If the reliability properties and connections hold as summarized from prior results, the review consolidates an emerging framework that extends inferential models beyond probabilistic uncertainty while preserving frequentist guarantees. The explicit links to conformal prediction and bootstrap methods are a notable strength, as they may enable practical, reproducible implementations and foster cross-fertilization between possibility theory and modern statistical learning. The paper gives appropriate credit to foundational IM work and imprecise-probability developments.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract asserts 'provably reliable' properties and 'very strong frequentist-like reliability'; a brief recap of the key steps in the referenced proofs (e.g., how the possibility measure yields the coverage guarantee) would help readers verify the claims without consulting the cited papers.
  2. Notation for the possibility measure and its relation to the inferential model output could be standardized across sections to avoid ambiguity when the generalization is introduced.
  3. The review would benefit from a short table or diagram contrasting the possibilistic IM construction with classical fiducial and Bayesian approaches, especially regarding conditioning and computational tools.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive and accurate summary of our manuscript, as well as for recommending minor revision. We appreciate the recognition of the paper's contributions regarding the frequentist reliability of possibilistic inferential models, their links to imprecise probability, and the new connections to bootstrap and conformal prediction methods.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; review summarizes independent prior results

full rationale

This is a review paper summarizing constructions, reliability properties, and generalizations of possibilistic inferential models drawn from prior literature and imprecise probability connections. The abstract and described content attribute key claims about frequentist-style guarantees and conditional reasoning to referenced developments rather than deriving them anew within this manuscript. No equations or steps are presented that reduce a claimed prediction or first-principles result to a fitted parameter or self-definition from the same inputs. The generalization linking to bootstrap and conformal prediction is framed as making new connections without evidence of circular reduction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review rests on standard assumptions from possibility theory and imprecise probability rather than introducing new fitted parameters or invented entities; the abstract invokes these frameworks as the source of flexibility and reliability without detailing additional ad-hoc choices.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Possibility theory supplies a framework for uncertainty quantification that is more flexible than classical probability while still permitting frequentist-style reliability guarantees.
    Directly stated in the abstract as the basis for the advantages of possibilistic IMs over probabilistic alternatives.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5687 in / 1339 out tokens · 45396 ms · 2026-05-19T04:35:20.403788+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Regularized e-processes: anytime valid inference with knowledge-based efficiency gains

    math.ST 2024-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Regularized e-processes add knowledge-based imprecise-probabilistic regularization to e-processes, yielding anytime-valid inference with efficiency gains and possibility-theoretic uncertainty quantification that satis...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

155 extracted references · 155 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical Data Analysis . Wiley-Interscience [John Wiley & Sons], New York, second edition

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    and Wang, Z

    Awan, J. and Wang, Z. (2024). Simulation-based, finite-sample inferencefor privatized data. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , to appear; arXiv:2303.05328

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    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

    work page arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

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

    work page 1977

  5. [5]

    Bayes, T. (1763). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. , pages 330--418

    work page

  6. [6]

    Berger, J. (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

    work page 1984

  7. [7]

    Berger, J., Bernardo, J., and Sun, D. (2024). Objective B ayesian I nference . World Scientific Publishing Co

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Buehler, R. J. and Fedderson, A. P. (1963). Note on a conditional property of S tudent's t . Ann. Math. Statist. , 34(3):1098--1100

    work page 1963

  9. [9]

    and Martin, R

    Cahoon, J. and Martin, R. (2020). A generalized inferential model for meta-analyses based on few studies. Statistics and Applications , 18(2):299--316

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    and Martin, R

    Cahoon, J. and Martin, R. (2021). Generalized inferential models for censored data. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. , 137:51--66

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Caprio, M., Sale, Y., and H\"ullermeier, E. (2025). Conformal prediction regions are imprecise highest density regions. arXiv:2502.06331

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    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

    work page

  13. [13]

    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

    work page

  14. [14]

    and Martin, R

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

    work page

  15. [15]

    and Martin, R

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

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    and Martin, R

    Cella, L. and Martin, R. (2025). Computationally efficient variational-like approximations of possibilistic inferential models. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. , 186:Paper No. 109506

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    (1953--1954)

    Choquet, G. (1953--1954). Theory of capacities. Ann. Inst. Fourier, Grenoble , 5:131--295 (1955)

    work page 1953

  18. [18]

    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

    work page 2001

  19. [19]

    and Hannig, J

    Cui, Y. and Hannig, J. (2024). Demystifying inferential moels: A fiducial perspective. Statist. Sci. , to appear; arXiv:2205.05612

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Cuzzolin, F. (2021). The G eometry of U ncertainty . Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms. Springer, Cham

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Datta, G. S. and Ghosh, J. K. (1995). On priors providing frequentist validity for B ayesian inference. Biometrika , 82(1):37--45

    work page 1995

  22. [22]

    Davison, A. C. and Hinkley, D. V. (1997). B ootstrap M ethods and their A pplication , volume 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    work page 1997

  23. [23]

    P., Stone, M., and Zidek, J

    Dawid, A. P., Stone, M., and Zidek, J. V. (1973). Marginalization paradoxes in B ayesian and structural inference. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B , 35:189--233. With discussion and reply by the authors

    work page 1973

  24. [24]

    De Cooman, G. (1997). Possibility theory. I . T he measure- and integral-theoretic groundwork. Internat. J. Gen. Systems , 25(4):291--323

    work page 1997

  25. [25]

    and Aeyels, D

    De Cooman, G. and Aeyels, D. (1999). Supremum preserving upper probabilities. Inform. Sci. , 118(1-4):173--212

    work page 1999

  26. [26]

    de Finetti, B. (1990). Theory of P robability. V ol.\ 1 . Wiley Classics Library. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester

    work page 1990

  27. [27]

    Dempster, A. P. (1963). Further examples of inconsistencies in the fiducial argument. Ann. Math. Statist. , 34:884--891

    work page 1963

  28. [28]

    Dempster, A. P. (1964). On the difficulities inherent in F isher's fiducial argument. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 59:56--66

    work page 1964

  29. [29]

    Dempster, A. P. (1966). New methods for reasoning towards posterior distributions based on sample data. Ann. Math. Statist. , 37:355--374

    work page 1966

  30. [30]

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

    work page 1967

  31. [31]

    Dempster, A. P. (1968). A generalization of B ayesian inference. ( W ith discussion). J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B , 30:205--247

    work page 1968

  32. [32]

    Dempster, A. P. (1971). Model searching and estimation in the logic of inference. In Godambe, V. P. and Sprott, D. A., editors, Foundations of S tatistical I nference , pages 56--78. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Toronto

    work page 1971

  33. [33]

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

    work page 2006

  34. [34]

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

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

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

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    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

    work page 2004

  37. [37]

    and Prade, H

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

    work page 1988

  38. [38]

    and Prade, H

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

    work page 1990

  39. [39]

    Dufour, J.-M. (1997). Some impossibility theorems in econometrics with applications to structural and dynamic models. Econometrica , 65(6):1365--1387

    work page 1997

  40. [40]

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

    work page 1989

  41. [41]

    Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. Ann. Statist. , 7(1):1--26

    work page 1979

  42. [42]

    Efron, B. (1998). R. A . F isher in the 21st century. Statist. Sci. , 13(2):95--122

    work page 1998

  43. [43]

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

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    and Tibshirani, R

    Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An I ntroduction to the B ootstrap . Chapman & Hall, New York

    work page 1993

  45. [45]

    Faraway, J. (2022). faraway: Functions and Datasets for Books by Julian Faraway . R package version 1.0.8

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Faulkenberry, G. D. (1973). A method of obtaining prediction intervals. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 68:433--435

    work page 1973

  47. [47]

    Fisher, R. A. (1930). Inverse probability. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , 26:528--535

    work page 1930

  48. [48]

    Fisher, R. A. (1933). The concepts of inverse probability and fiducial probability referring to unknown parameters. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. , 139:343--348

    work page 1933

  49. [49]

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

    work page

  50. [50]

    Fisher, R. A. (1935b). The logic of inductive inference. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. , 98:39--82

    work page

  51. [51]

    Fisher, R. A. (1935c). The Design of Experiments . Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh

    work page

  52. [52]

    Fisher, R. A. (1973). Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference . Hafner Press, New York, 3rd edition

    work page 1973

  53. [53]

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

    work page 1968

  54. [54]

    Fraser, D. A. S. (2011a). Is B ayes posterior just quick and dirty confidence? Statist. Sci. , 26(3):299--316

    work page

  55. [55]

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

    work page

  56. [56]

    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

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    Fraser, D. A. S. (2014). Why does statistics have two theories? In Lin, X., Genest, C., Banks, D. L., Molenberghs, G., Scott, D. W., and Wang, J.-L., editors, Past, Present, and Future of Statistical Science , chapter 22. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press

    work page 2014

  58. [58]

    Fraser, D. A. S., B\'edard, M., Wong, A., Lin, W., and Fraser, A. M. (2016). Bayes, reproducibility and the quest for truth. Statist. Sci. , 31(4):578--590

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    Garfinkel, S. L. (2025). Differential P rivacy . The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    Gelman, A., Meng, X.-L., and Stern, H. (1996). Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies. Statist. Sinica , 6(4):733--807. With comments and a rejoinder by the authors

    work page 1996

  61. [61]

    and Murray, D

    Gigerenzer, G. and Murray, D. J. (1987). Cognition as I ntuitive S tatistics . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey

    work page 1987

  62. [62]

    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

    work page 1987

  63. [63]

    and Meng, X.-L

    Gong, R. and Meng, X.-L. (2021). Judicious judgment meets unsettling updating: dilation, sure loss and S impson's paradox. Statist. Sci. , 36(2):169--190

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    Hacking, I. (1976). Logic of S tatistical I nference . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge-New York-Melbourne

    work page 1976

  65. [65]

    M., and Wendelberger, J

    Hamada, M., Johnson, V., Moore, L. M., and Wendelberger, J. (2004). Bayesian prediction intervals and their relationship to tolerance intervals. Technometrics , 46(4):452--459

    work page 2004

  66. [66]

    and Lee, T

    Han, Y. and Lee, T. C. M. (2022). Uncertainty quantification for sparse estimation of spectral lines. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , 70:6243--6256

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    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

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    and Lee, T

    Hannig, J. and Lee, T. C. M. (2009). Generalized fiducial inference for wavelet regression. Biometrika , 96(4):847--860

    work page 2009

  69. [69]

    He, X., Madigan, D., Yu, B., and Wellner, J. (2025). Statistics at a crossroads; who is for the challenge? arXiv:2503.22945

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    C., Cella, L., and Martin, R

    Hector, E. C., Cella, L., and Martin, R. (2025). Divide-and-conquer with finite sample sizes: valid and efficient possibilistic inference. arXiv:2503.22812

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Hoff, P. (2023). Bayes-optimal prediction with frequentist coverage control. Bernoulli , 29(2):901--928

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    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

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    and Hanss, M

    Hose, D. and Hanss, M. (2021). A universal approach to imprecise probabilities in possibility theory. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. , 133:133--158

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    Hose, D., Hanss, M., and Martin, R. (2022). A practical strategy for valid partial prior-dependent possibilistic inference. In Le H\' e garat-Mascle, S., Bloch, I., and Aldea, E., editors, Belief Functions: Theory and Applications (BELIEF 2022) , volume 13506 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence , pages 197--206. Springer

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    Huber, P. J. (1973). The use of C hoquet capacities in statistics. Bull. Inst. Internat. Statist. , 45(book 4):181--191. With discussion by P. G\" a nssler, W. S. Hall, L. Schmetterer, Charles Stein, and G. N. Wilkinson and with reply by the author

    work page 1973

  76. [76]

    Huber, P. J. (1981). Robust S tatistics . John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. W iley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics

    work page 1981

  77. [77]

    Imbens, G. W. and Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal I nference---for S tatistics, S ocial, and B iomedical S ciences . Cambridge University Press, New York

    work page 2015

  78. [78]

    E., Gong, R., Edlefsen, P

    Jacob, P. E., Gong, R., Edlefsen, P. T., and Dempster, A. P. (2021). A G ibbs sampler for a class of random convex polytopes. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 116(535):1181--1192

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability T heory: T he L ogic of S cience . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    work page 2003

  80. [80]

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

    work page 1946

Showing first 80 references.