Group invariant inferred distributions via noncommutative probability

One may consider three types of statistical inference: Bayesian, frequentist, and group invariance-based. The focus here is on the last method. We consider the Poisson and binomial distributions in detail to illustrate a group invariance method for constructing inferred distributions on parameter spaces given observed results. These inferred distributions are obtained without using Bayes' method and in particular without using a joint distribution of random variable and parameter. In the Poisson and binomial cases, the final formulas for inferred distributions coincide with the formulas for Bayes posteriors with uniform priors.Comment: Published at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/074921706000000563 in the IMS Lecture Notes--Monograph Series (http://www.imstat.org/publications/lecnotes.htm) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Book Review

Reviewing Louis B. Heller, Do You Solemnly Swear? Doubleday & Co., Inc., 196

Synthesis of atactic and stereoregular vinylaromatic polymers and a study of their reactions with alkali metals Final report

Synthesis and characteristics of atactic and stereoregular vinylaromatic polymers and their reactions with alkali metal

A Reply to: Large Exomoons unlikely around Kepler-1625 b and Kepler-1708 b

Recently, Heller & Hippke argued that the exomoon candidates Kepler-1625 b-i and Kepler-1708 b-i were allegedly 'refuted'. In this Matters Arising, we address these claims. For Kepler-1625 b, we show that their Hubble light curve is identical to that previously published by the same lead author, in which the moon-like dip was recovered. Indeed, our fits of their data again recover the moon-like dip with improved residuals than that obtained by Heller & Hippke. Their fits therefore appear to have somehow missed this deeper likelihood maximum, as well producing apparently unconverged posteriors. Consequently, their best-fitting moon is the same radius as the planet, Kepler-1625 b; a radically different signal from that which was originally claimed. The authors then inject this solution into the Kepler data and remark, as a point of concern, how retrievals obtain much higher significances than originally reported. However, this issue stems from the injection of a fundamentally different signal. We demonstrate that their Hubble light curve exhibits ~20% higher noise and discards 11% of the useful data, which compromises its ability to recover the subtle signal of Kepler-1625 b-i. For Kepler-1708 b-i it was claimed that the exomoon model's Bayes factor is highly sensitive to detrending choices, yielding reduced evidence with a biweight filter versus the original claim. We use their own i) detrended light curve and ii) biweight filter code to investigate these claims. For both, we recover the original moon signal, to even higher confidence than before. The discrepancy is explained by comparing to their quoted fit metrics, where we again demonstrate that the Heller & Hippke regression definitively missed the deeper likelihood maximum corresponding to Kepler-1708 b-i. We conclude that both candidates remain viable but certainly demand further observations.Comment: Under consideration by Nature Astronomy as Matters Arisin

A model of an optical biosensor detecting environment

Heller et. Al. (Science 311, 508 (2006)) demonstrated the first DNA-CN optical sensor by wrapping a piece of double-stranded DNA around the surface of single-walled carbon nanotubes (CN). This new type of optical device can be placed inside living cells and detect trace amounts of harmful contaminants by means of near infrared light. Using a simple exciton theory in nanostructures and the phenomena of B-Z structural phase transition of DNA, we investigate the working principle of this new class of optical biosensor from DNA by using the nanostructure surface as a sensor to detect the property change of DNA as it responds to the presence of target ions. We also propose some new design models by replacing carbon nanotubes with graphene ribbon semiconductors.Comment: 4 pages, 4 figures, Accepte

Lessons from Fiascos in Russian Corporate Governance

"Bad corporate governance" is often invoked to explain poor enterprise performance, but the catch phrase is never precisely defined - neither its consequences for the real economy, nor its causes in particular countries has been adequately explained. This paper uses Russian enterprise examples to address these open questions in corporate governance theory. We define corporate governance by looking to the economic functions of the firm rather than to any particular set of national corporate laws. Firms exhibit good corporate governance when their managers maximize residuals and, in the case of investor-owned firms, make pro rata distributions to shareholders. First, using this definition, we develop a typology that shows the channels through which bad corporate governance can inflict damage on the real economy. The topology helps identify vulnerabilities to corporate governance problems that may appear in any country and it suggests a new way to tailor policy responses. Second, we explain the causes of poor corporate performance in Russia by looking to the particular conditions prevailing at privatization - untenable initial firm boundaries and insider allocation of firm shares - and the bargaining dynamics that followed. The focus on initial conditions helps expand a comparative corporate governance literature built on United States, Western European, and Japanese models. Lessons from Russian fiascos counsel caution as to "stakeholder" proposals - including labor or local communities in formal corporate governance - and generate testable hypotheses regarding potential losses from the multiple large block share ownerships typical of many U.S. firms, especially close corporations.

What Happened to the American Social Compact?

The Sixth Annual Frank M. Coffin Lecture on Law and Public Service was held on October 6, 1997. Robert B. Reich, formerly the Secretary of Labor under the Clinton Administration, and currently a University Professor and the Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University and its Heller Graduate School, presented “The American Social Compact: What It Was and Where It Went.