Confidence Intervals for Assessing Non-Inferiority with Assay Sensitivity in a Three-Arm Trial with Normally Distributed Endpoints

Various approaches including hypothesis test and confidence interval (CI) construction have been proposed to assess non-inferiority and assay sensitivity via a known fraction or pre-specified margin in three-arm trials with continuous or discrete endpoints. However, there is little work done on the construction of the non-inferiority margin from historical data and simultaneous generalized CIs (SGCIs) in a three-arm trial with the normally distributed endpoints. Based on the generalized fiducial method and the square-and-add method, we propose two simultaneous CIs for assessing non-inferiority and assay sensitivity in a three-arm trial. For comparison, we also consider the Wald-type Bonferroni simultaneous CI and parametric bootstrap simultaneous CI. An algorithm for evaluating the optimal sample size for attaining the pre-specified power is given. Simulation studies are conducted to investigate the performance of the proposed CIs in terms of their empirical coverage probabilities. An example taken from the mildly asthmatic study is illustrated using the proposed simultaneous CIs. Empirical results show that the proposed generalized fiducial method and the square-and-add method behave better than other two compared CIs.

The Limited Scope of the Democratic Peace: What We Are Missing

The democratic peace program arguably constitutes one of the most successful empirical research programs in the discipline. Its main empirical finding motivated extensive theorizing (e.g., challengers, as well as distinct theoretical enterprises), sparked further debate about how to conceptualize and operationalize democracy, and shifted the foreign policy discourse, particularly in the United States. Lost in these successes, however, is a critical unanswered question: how much interstate peace can the democratic peace potentially explain? We explore these limits (i.e., scope, or empirical coverage) in this study. We first identify the peaceful dyadic relationships—namely those that never go to war across long historical periods. We next classify these dyads as democratic (i.e., both members are democracies) or nondemocratic. The empirical analysis then examines this democracy–peace relationship across three time periods, three distinct samples (which address potential false positives), two definitions of “peace,” and two thresholds for democracy. Regardless of how we approach the data, only 4–26 percent of all peaceful dyads qualify as “democratic.” Because we control for the obvious trivial explanation (insufficient capabilities due to distance), some other (set of) factor(s) must account for the majority of interstate peace. We close with a discussion about where future research might search for these factors, as well as the larger policy implications of the study.

Time-specific average estimation of dynamic panel regressions

This paper introduces an unbiased estimator based on least squares involving time-specific cross-sectional averages for a first-order panel autoregression with a strictly exogenous covariate. The proposed estimator is straightforward to implement as long as the variables of interest have sufficient time variation. The number of cross-sections (N) and the number of time periods (T) can be large, and there is no restriction on the growth rate of N relative to T. It is demonstrated via both theory and a simulation study that the estimator is asymptotically unbiased, and it can provide correct empirical coverage probabilities for the ‘true’ coefficients of the model for various combinations of N and T. An empirical application is also provided to confirm the feasibility of the proposed approach.

Making good on a promise

Construction Grammar was founded on the promise of maximal empirical coverage without compromising on formal precision. Its main claim is that all linguistic knowledge can be represented as constructions, similar to the notion of constructions from traditional grammars. As such, Construction Grammar may finally reconcile the needs of descriptive and theoretical linguistics by establishing a common ground between them. Unfortunately, while the construction grammar community has developed a sophisticated understanding of what a construction is supposed to be, many critics still believe that a construction is simply a new jacket for traditional linguistic analyses and therefore inherits all of the problems of those analyses. The goal of this article is to refute such criticisms by showing how constructions can be formalized as open-ended and multidimensional linguistic representations that make no prior assumptions about the structure of a language. While this article’s proposal can be simply written down in a pen-and-paper style, it verifies the validity of its approach through a computational implementation of German field topology in Fluid Construction Grammar.

Memory Constraints on Cross Situational Word Learning

A simple memory component is amended to local (“Pursuit”; Stevens, Gleitman, Trueswell, and Yang (2017)) and globa l(e.g., Yu and Smith (2007); Fazly, Alishahi, and Stevenson (2010)) models of cross-situational word learning. Only a finite (and small) number of words can be concurrently learned; successfully learned words are removed from the memory buffer and stored in the lexicon. The memory buffer improves the empirical coverage for both local and global learn-ing models. However, the complex task of homophone learning (Yurovsky & Yu, 2008) proves a more decisive advantage for the local model (dubbed Memory Bound Pursuit; MBP). Implications and limitations of these results are discussed.

Common names and proper nouns: Morphosyntactic evidence of a complete nominal paradigm

The terms "common noun" and "proper name" encode two dichotomies that are often conflated. This paper explores the possibility of the other combinations—"common name" and "proper noun"—and concludes that both exist on the basis of their morphosyntactic behavior. In support of common names, inflectional regularization is determined to result from a "name" layer in the structure, meaning that common nouns that regularize are, in fact, common names (computer mouses, tailor’s gooses). In support of proper nouns, there are bare singular count nouns in English that receive definite interpretations and seem to be licensed as arguments by the same null determiner as proper names (I left town, she works at home). Not only does a four-way distinction between nouns, names, proper nouns, and proper names achieve greater empirical coverage, but it also captures the independent morphosyntactic effects of [PROPER] and [NAME] as features on D and N, respectively.

High and low uniqueness in singular wh-interrogatives

While simple singular wh-interrogatives carry a uniqueness presupposition, this is not so when they contain possibility modals. Hirsch & Schwarz (2019) account for this contrast by assuming (i) that questions can have multiple maximally informative true answers and (ii) that uniqueness is triggered lexically inside the scope of interrogative. We show that their proposal overgenerates on two accounts. Firstly, it predicts too weak a presupposition for modalized interrogatives. Secondly, it predicts unattested interpretations for interrogatives containing negation. We show that both issues can be solved using exhaustification operators. On the one hand, we obtain the desired presupposition for modalized interrogatives by assuming the lexical trigger for uniqueness to be a presuppositional variant of an exhaustification operator (Bassi, Del Pinal & Sauerland 2019). On the other, we show that unattested readings of negation can be blocked by assuming that questions presuppose that the pointwise exhaustification of their answers partitions the context of evaluation (Fox 2019). We argue that proper empirical coverage for singular wh-interrogatives requires the interaction of both exhaustification operations.

On Single and Two-Tiered Approaches to Control

In his most recent work, Landau suggests that control in impersonal passive constructions is cross-linguistically limited to attitude verbs and argues that this universal restriction offers convincing support for his two-tiered theory of control (TTC) over his earlier “single tier” Agree-based model. This paper further examines sentences involving control and passivization and argues that improved empirical coverage is achieved in this area by a single-tier Agree approach to control, one fundamentally different from Landau’s earlier analysis in its extension to control Reuland’s proposals reducing binding phenomena to Agree.

State of the Art and Research Design

This chapter begins by reviewing several bodies of scholarly works that are relevant to this research, notably, the international relations literature on regime complexity and the international political economy literature on financial regulation. It then discusses three mainstream theoretically informed explanations—a state-centric, a transgovernmental, and a business-led accounts—which can be useful to explain how regime complexity in derivatives was dealt with. Finally, it outlines the research design, the analytical framework, the methodology, the sources, the timeframe, and the empirical coverage. Empirically, this book examines all the main aspects concerning the regulation of derivatives markets, namely: trading, clearing and reporting derivatives; resilience, recovery and resolution of central counterparties; capital requirements for bank exposures to central counterparties and derivatives; margins for derivatives non-centrally cleared via central counterparties.

Interpreting plural predication: homogeneity and non-maximality

Plural definite descriptions across many languages display two well-known properties. First, they can give rise to so-called non-maximal readings, in the sense that they ‘allow for exceptions’ (Mary read the books on the reading list, in some contexts, can be judged true even if Mary didn’t read all the books on the reading list). Second, while they tend to have a quasi-universal quantificational force in affirmative sentences (‘quasi-universal’ rather than simply ‘universal’ due to the possibility of exceptions we have just mentioned), they tend to be interpreted existentially in the scope of negation (a property often referred to as homogeneity, cf. Löbner in Linguist Philos 23:213–308, 2000). Building on previous works (in particular Krifka in Proceedings of SALT VI, Cornell University, pp 136–153, 1996 and Malamud in Semant Pragmat, 5:1–28, 2012), we offer a theory in which sentences containing plural definite expressions trigger a family of possible interpretations, and where general principles of language use account for their interpretation in various contexts and syntactic environments. Our theory solves a number of problems that these previous works encounter, and has broader empirical coverage in that it offers a precise analysis for sentences that display complex interactions between plural definites, quantifiers and bound variables, as well as for cases involving non-distributive predicates. The resulting proposal is briefly compared with an alternative proposal by Križ (Aspects of homogeneity in the semantics of natural language, University of Vienna, 2015), which has similar coverage but is based on a very different architecture and sometimes makes subtly different predictions.