COOKIES: By using this website you agree that we can place Google Analytics Cookies on your device for performance monitoring. |

University of Cambridge > Talks.cam > Statistics Reading Group > Charles Stein's 1956 inadmissibility paper

## Charles Stein's 1956 inadmissibility paperAdd to your list(s) Download to your calendar using vCal - Larry Brown, Statistics Department, University of Pennsylvania
- Thursday 16 October 2008, 17:00-18:00
- MR12, CMS.
If you have a question about this talk, please contact Richard Samworth. Just over 50 years ago Stein published a startling statistical result. (Stein (1956).) When three or more normal means are to be estimated the sample mean is not an admissible estimator. It is better to ‘shrink’ towards the origin, or some other predetermined point. At first this fact appeared to many as a mathematical peculiarity, with no particular practical significance. Publication five years later of the James-Stein (1961) estimator demonstrated that the difference in performance could be quite substantial between the sample mean and a suitable shrinkage estimator. It has become understood in the intervening decades how this minimax surprise is intimately related to a variety of other practical statistical methodologies and its principles applicable in a wide range of practical settings. Stein’s original paper included a geometrical explanation as to why such a paradoxical result is inevitable when estimating sufficiently many separate means, as well a relatively simple proof that 3 is sufficiently many. I’ll supplement his geometric argument with a simple geometric diagram and then sketch his proof. I can also remark about several generalizations (Brown (1966)) of this proof that show this abnormal result is not only a result about the normal distribution and squared error loss (as some statisticians at the time had suspected). I don’t specifically plan on discussing any further technicalities, but if time permits I can sketch where this seminal paper has led, including especially James-Stein (1961), mentioned above, and Brown (1971) which attempts to show that there are several related mathematical situations where 3>>2. [Incidentally, my Kuwait Lecture on Tuesday provides a specific illustration of how shrinkage ideas can be used in high dimensional data settings.] Stein’s original paper is available at http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&id=pdf_1&handle=euclid.bsmsp/1200501656 This talk is part of the Statistics Reading Group series. ## This talk is included in these lists:- All CMS events
- All Talks (aka the CURE list)
- CMS Events
- DPMMS Lists
- DPMMS info aggregator
- DPMMS lists
- MR12, CMS
- School of Physical Sciences
- Statistical Laboratory info aggregator
- Statistics Group
- Statistics Reading Group
- bld31
Note that ex-directory lists are not shown. |
## Other listsWorld Oral Literature Project Pembroke Politics Cambridge Public Policy Workshops## Other talksMagnetic van der Waals Materials: Potentials and Applications Production Processes Group Seminar - "Advanced water filtration platforms based on hierarchically structured carbon nanotubes." TODAY Foster Talk - Localised RNA-based mechanisms underlie neuronal wiring CPGJ Reading Group "Space, Borders, Power" Protean geographies: Plants, politics and postcolonialism in South Africa CANCELLED: The cognitive neuroscience of antidepressant drug action |