BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Nikolaos Ignatiadis

Nikolaos Ignatiadis contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningMethodologyApplicationscs.CYmath.STStatistics Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
6topics
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

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Empirical Bayes Rebiasing

We study methods for simultaneous analysis of many noisy and biased estimates, each paired with an even noisier estimate of its own bias. The analyst's goal is to construct short calibrated intervals for each parameter. The standard debiasing approach, which subtracts the bias estimate from each biased estimate, inflates variance and yields long intervals. In this paper, we propose an empirical Bayes rebiasing strategy that starts from the fully debiased estimates and learns from data how much bias to reintroduce by estimating the unknown bias distribution. We provide convergence rates for the coverage of our intervals when the bias distribution is estimated using nonparametric maximum likelihood. Furthermore, we demonstrate substantial precision gains in prediction-powered inference, including pairwise LLM win-rate evaluations, as well as for inference of direct genetic effects in family-based GWAS.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Net benefit, calibration, threshold selection, and training objectives for algorithmic fairness in healthcare

A growing body of work uses the paradigm of algorithmic fairness to frame the development of techniques to anticipate and proactively mitigate the introduction or exacerbation of health inequities that may follow from the use of model-guided decision-making. We evaluate the interplay between measures of model performance, fairness, and the expected utility of decision-making to offer practical recommendations for the operationalization of algorithmic fairness principles for the development and evaluation of predictive models in healthcare. We conduct an empirical case-study via development of models to estimate the ten-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to inform statin initiation in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. We demonstrate that approaches that incorporate fairness considerations into the model training objective typically do not improve model performance or confer greater net benefit for any of the studied patient populations compared to the use of standard learning paradigms followed by threshold selection concordant with patient preferences, evidence of intervention effectiveness, and model calibration. These results hold when the measured outcomes are not subject to differential measurement error across patient populations and threshold selection is unconstrained, regardless of whether differences in model performance metrics, such as in true and false positive error rates, are present. In closing, we argue for focusing model development efforts on developing calibrated models that predict outcomes well for all patient populations while emphasizing that such efforts are complementary to transparent reporting, participatory design, and reasoning about the impact of model-informed interventions in context.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Using public clinical trial reports to evaluate observational study methods

Observational studies are valuable for estimating the effects of various medical interventions, but are notoriously difficult to evaluate because the methods used in observational studies require many untestable assumptions. This lack of verifiability makes it difficult both to compare different observational study methods and to trust the results of any particular observational study. In this work, we propose TrialVerify, a new approach for evaluating observational study methods based on ground truth sourced from clinical trial reports. We process trial reports into a denoised collection of known causal relationships that can then be used to estimate the precision and recall of various observational study methods. We then use TrialVerify to evaluate multiple observational study methods in terms of their ability to identify the known causal relationships from a large national insurance claims dataset. We found that inverse propensity score weighting is an effective approach for accurately reproducing known causal relationships and outperforms other observational study methods. TrialVerify is made freely available for others to evaluate observational study methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

$σ$-Ridge: group regularized ridge regression via empirical Bayes noise level cross-validation

Features in predictive models are not exchangeable, yet common supervised models treat them as such. Here we study ridge regression when the analyst can partition the features into $K$ groups based on external side-information. For example, in high-throughput biology, features may represent gene expression, protein abundance or clinical data and so each feature group represents a distinct modality. The analyst's goal is to choose optimal regularization parameters $λ= (λ_1, \dotsc, λ_K)$ -- one for each group. In this work, we study the impact of $λ$ on the predictive risk of group-regularized ridge regression by deriving limiting risk formulae under a high-dimensional random effects model with $p\asymp n$ as $n \to \infty$. Furthermore, we propose a data-driven method for choosing $λ$ that attains the optimal asymptotic risk: The key idea is to interpret the residual noise variance $σ^2$, as a regularization parameter to be chosen through cross-validation. An empirical Bayes construction maps the one-dimensional parameter $σ$ to the $K$-dimensional vector of regularization parameters, i.e., $σ\mapsto \widehatλ(σ)$. Beyond its theoretical optimality, the proposed method is practical and runs as fast as cross-validated ridge regression without feature groups ($K=1$).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Covariate-Powered Empirical Bayes Estimation

We study methods for simultaneous analysis of many noisy experiments in the presence of rich covariate information. The goal of the analyst is to optimally estimate the true effect underlying each experiment. Both the noisy experimental results and the auxiliary covariates are useful for this purpose, but neither data source on its own captures all the information available to the analyst. In this paper, we propose a flexible plug-in empirical Bayes estimator that synthesizes both sources of information and may leverage any black-box predictive model. We show that our approach is within a constant factor of minimax for a simple data-generating model. Furthermore, we establish robust convergence guarantees for our method that hold under considerable generality, and exhibit promising empirical performance on both real and simulated data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access