More Like this

1. No Rose for MLE: Inadmissibility of MLE for Evaluation Aggregation Under Levels of Expertise

   Rastogi, Charvi; Stelmakh, Ivan; Shah, Nihar; Balakrishnan, Sivaraman (January 2022, International symposium on information theory)
2. Uncertainty Quantification of MLE for Entity Ranking with Covariates

   Fan, Jianqing; Hou, Jikai; Yu, Mengxin (August 2024, Journal of machine learning research)
3. Stretching the Effectiveness of MLE from Accuracy to Bias for Pairwise Comparisons

   Wang, Jingyan; Shah, Nihar; Ravi, R (January 2020, AISTATS)

   null (Ed.)
4. Rescuing neural spike train models from bad MLE

   Arribas, D. M.; Zhao, Y. & (January 2020, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS))

   null (Ed.)

   The standard approach to fitting an autoregressive spike train model is to maximize the likelihood for one-step prediction. This maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) often leads to models that perform poorly when generating samples recursively for more than one time step. Moreover, the generated spike trains can fail to capture important features of the data and even show diverging firing rates. To alleviate this, we propose to directly minimize the divergence between neural recorded and model generated spike trains using spike train kernels. We develop a method that stochastically optimizes the maximum mean discrepancy induced by the kernel. Experiments performed on both real and synthetic neural data validate the proposed approach, showing that it leads to well-behaving models. Using different combinations of spike train kernels, we show that we can control the trade-off between different features which is critical for dealing with model-mismatch. 

   more » « less
5. Spectral method and regularized MLE are both optimal for top-$$K$$ ranking

   https://doi.org/10.1214/18-aos1745  

   Chen, Yuxin; Fan, Jianqing; Ma, Cong; Wang, Kaizheng (August 2019, The Annals of Statistics)