Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Muyin Wang

dblp:319/0154 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Information theory · 61% Mathematical optimization · 39%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information theory › probability theory
heavy-tailed distributions
0.612022
Is Least-Squares Inaccurate in Fitting Power-Law Distributions? The Criticism is Complete Nonsense · WWW 2022
Mathematical optimization
least squares
0.612022
Is Least-Squares Inaccurate in Fitting Power-Law Distributions? The Criticism is Complete Nonsense · WWW 2022
Information theory › probability theory
probability distributions
0.612022
Is Least-Squares Inaccurate in Fitting Power-Law Distributions? The Criticism is Complete Nonsense · WWW 2022
Mathematical optimization
statistical estimation
0.212022
Is Least-Squares Inaccurate in Fitting Power-Law Distributions? The Criticism is Complete Nonsense · WWW 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

maximum likelihood estimation · 0.6least-squares estimation · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Is Least-Squares Inaccurate in Fitting Power-Law Distributions? The Criticism is Complete Nonsense
abstract
Ordinary least-squares estimation is proved to be the best linear unbiased estimator according to the Gauss-Markov theorem. In the last two decades, however, some researchers criticized that least-squares was substantially inaccurate in fitting power-law distributions; such criticism has caused a strong bias in research community. In this paper, we conduct extensive experiments to rebut that such criticism is complete nonsense. Specifically, we sample different sizes of discrete and continuous data from power-law models, showing that even though the long-tailed noises are sampled from power-law models, they cannot be treated as power-law data. We define the correct way to bin continuous power-law data into data points and propose an average strategy for least-squares to fit power-law distributions. Experiments on both simulated and real-world data show that our proposed method fits power-law data perfectly. We uncover a fundamental flaw in the popular method proposed by Clauset et al. [12]: it tends to discard the majority of power-law data and fit the long-tailed noises. Experiments also show that the reverse cumulative distribution function is a bad idea to plot power-law data in practice because it usually hides the true probability distribution of data. We hope that our research can clean up the bias about least-squares fitting power-law distributions.
Xiaoshi Zhong, Muyin Wang, Hongkun Zhang
WWW2