Robust estimation for ARMA models

This paper introduces a new class of robust estimates for ARMA models. They are M-estimates, but the residuals are computed so the effect of one outlier is limited to the period where it occurs. These estimates are closely related to those based on a robust filter, but they have two important advantages: they are consistent and the asymptotic theory is tractable. We perform a Monte Carlo where we show that these estimates compare favorably with respect to standard M-estimates and to estimates based on a diagnostic procedure.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/07-AOS570 the Annals of Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aos/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Writing the Collaborative Process: Measure (Still) for Measure, Shakespeare, and Rape Culture

To what extent can a process of collaborative creation unseat Shakespeare as a source of cultural authority? In February 2016, a group of professional performers gathered in an abandoned shop front in Exeter’s city centre to formally begin a devising process with Shakespeare and Middleton’s Measure for Measure that had been incubating in my mind for almost a year. Nearly a year later, in January 2017, an unrelated group of secondary school students began a similar process, with the same text. What began as a persistent sense that these long-dead writers had omitted an important perspective in their play has evolved into Measure (Still) for Measure: a project blending Shakespeare, physical theatre, devising, and intersectional feminism. Its goals are threefold: to reorient the 400-year-old play around its female protagonist, Isabella; to facilitate difficult conversations about consent and rape culture; and to instigate policy change in educational institutions. It is not a coincidence that the school hosting the project’s pilot phase recently announced an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against one of its former teachers. In this article, I attempt to write through the two project phases completed to date and, in the process, demonstrate methods for disrupting Shakespeare's authority

Praxair and the PTAB\u27s Shadow Over Biotechnology Patents

The biotechnology industry is one of the fastest growing fields in research and development. This may be attributed to the decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, where the Supreme Court held that a biotechnology invention was patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, recent Supreme Court rulings have left the boundaries of § 101 uncertain, unworkable, and difficult for biotechnology industries to gain patent protections for their inventions. Before Congress enacted the AIA in 2011, the courts were the biggest influence on shaping the doctrine of patent eligible subject matter under § 101. But now with the new AIA post-grant proceedings, the PTAB plays an influential role in determining subject-matter eligibility. Through the new AIA post-grant proceedings, the PTAB has the ability to hear petitions that challenge the validity of a patent under §§ 101, 102, 103, or 112. But after the recent decision in Praxair Distribution., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd., the PTAB may now begin exerting too much influence over the doctrine of § 101. This decision, a case heard in inter partes review, threatens to stretch the PTAB’s power dangerously thin. Under the AIA, cases reviewed in inter partes review may not present challenges on patentable subject matter under § 101. However, in Praxair, the PTAB used parts of a § 101 analysis to determine that the claims were ineligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s reasoning, suggesting that PTAB may be able to expand the reach of § 101 and allow petitioners to bring eligibility claims in inter partes review—where it is statutorily not allowed. Overall, the PTAB’s power over eligible subject matter makes it easier for applications and patents to be invalidated under §101. This could particularly harm biotechnology and bioscience industries where patent protection is at a disadvantage. This Note will discuss how the Supreme Court and PTAB have affected the subject-matter eligibility under § 101 and how this impacts patent rights for biotechnology innovation. Specifically, this Note will discuss how the PTAB’s decision in Praxair has expanded the scope of inter partes review and further added to the uncertainty of patentable subject matter