Researcher profile

Nikolai Vereshchagin

Nikolai Vereshchagin contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
9topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2012arXiv

Limit complexities revisited [once more]

The main goal of this article is to put some known results in a common perspective and to simplify their proofs. We start with a simple proof of a result of Vereshchagin saying that $\limsup_n C(x|n)$ equals $C^{0'}(x)$. Then we use the same argument to prove similar results for prefix complexity, a priori probability on binary tree, to prove Conidis' theorem about limits of effectively open sets, and also to improve the results of Muchnik about limit frequencies. As a by-product, we get a criterion of 2-randomness proved by Miller: a sequence $X$ is 2-random if and only if there exists $c$ such that any prefix $x$ of $X$ is a prefix of some string $y$ such that $C(y)\ge |y|-c$. (In the 1960ies this property was suggested in Kolmogorov as one of possible randomness definitions.) We also get another 2-randomness criterion by Miller and Nies: $X$ is 2-random if and only if $C(x)\ge |x|-c$ for some $c$ and infinitely many prefixes $x$ of $X$. This is a modified version of our old paper that contained a weaker (and cumbersome) version of Conidis' result, and the proof used low basis theorem (in quite a strange way). The full version was formulated there as a conjecture. This conjecture was later proved by Conidis. Bruno Bauwens (personal communication) noted that the proof can be obtained also by a simple modification of our original argument, and we reproduce Bauwens' argument with his permission.

preprint2011arXiv

Probability-free pricing of adjusted American lookbacks

Consider an American option that pays G(X^*_t) when exercised at time t, where G is a positive increasing function, X^*_t := \sup_{s\le t}X_s, and X_s is the price of the underlying security at time s. Assuming zero interest rates, we show that the seller of this option can hedge his position by trading in the underlying security if he begins with initial capital X_0\int_{X_0}^{\infty}G(x)x^{-2}dx (and this is the smallest initial capital that allows him to hedge his position). This leads to strategies for trading that are always competitive both with a given strategy's current performance and, to a somewhat lesser degree, with its best performance so far. It also leads to methods of statistical testing that avoid sacrificing too much of the maximum statistical significance that they achieve in the course of accumulating data.

preprint2011arXiv

Test Martingales, Bayes Factors and $p$-Values

A nonnegative martingale with initial value equal to one measures evidence against a probabilistic hypothesis. The inverse of its value at some stopping time can be interpreted as a Bayes factor. If we exaggerate the evidence by considering the largest value attained so far by such a martingale, the exaggeration will be limited, and there are systematic ways to eliminate it. The inverse of the exaggerated value at some stopping time can be interpreted as a $p$-value. We give a simple characterization of all increasing functions that eliminate the exaggeration.

preprint2010arXiv

Insuring against loss of evidence in game-theoretic probability

We consider the game-theoretic scenario of testing the performance of Forecaster by Sceptic who gambles against the forecasts. Sceptic's current capital is interpreted as the amount of evidence he has found against Forecaster. Reporting the maximum of Sceptic's capital so far exaggerates the evidence. We characterize the set of all increasing functions that remove the exaggeration. This result can be used for insuring against loss of evidence.