跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要讨论统计模型与参数的通用基础理论,预测只是说明推断域扩展的例子,不足以归入专门预测方向。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Peter McCullagh

什么是统计模型?

研究问题
统计模型怎样才具有可解释的意义,参数怎样才有明确含义,以及模型在向未来单位、对象或时间点进行推断时需要怎样的扩展?
方法与思路
作者使用态射、函子和自然变换等代数概念形式化模型与参数,讨论推断域的自然扩展,并通过例子区分自然与非自然参数函数。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要主张有意义的推断需要模型覆盖目标推断域的自然扩展及自然参数,并讨论这一观点对先验构造和 Box–Cox 模型争议的影响。
阅读关注点
应核对自然扩展和自然参数的精确定义、相关结论的适用范围,以及先验构造和 Box–Cox 示例如何支持作者的论证。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;形式定义与完整论证未提供,不能把作者提出的建模框架直接当作所有推断理论的共识。

原文摘要

This paper addresses two closely related questions, "What is a statistical model?" and "What is a parameter?" The notions that a model must "make sense," and that a parameter must "have a well-defined meaning" are deeply ingrained in applied statistical work, reasonably well understood at an instinctive level, but absent from most formal theories of modelling and inference. In this paper, these concepts are defined in algebraic terms, using morphisms, functors and natural transformations. It is argued that inference on the basis of a model is not possible unless the model admits a natural extension that includes the domain for which inference is required. For example, prediction requires that the domain include all future units, subjects or time points. Although it is usually not made explicit, every sensible statistical model admits such an extension. Examples are given to show why such an extension is necessary and why a formal theory is required. In the definition of a subparameter, it is shown that certain parameter functions are natural and others are not. Inference is meaningful only for natural parameters. This distinction has important consequences for the construction of prior distributions and also helps to resolve a controversy concerning the Box-Cox model.

笔记与分组