Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

On factors influencing consumer preference in pipeline stages: an experiment

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A logistic regression of 1,024 sales opportunities in an eight-stage pipeline finds that only order size, pipeline stage, and email volume significantly predict reaching the final stage.

desk verdict The main result is an artifact of outcome leakage: the strongest predictor is the same variable used to define the outcome, so the paper's central claim is tautological. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03418 v1 pith:435NX5VE submitted 2025-01-06 stat.AP

Paramahansa Pramanik , Joel Graff , Mike Decaro This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.AP MSC 62J12
keywords businesspipelinelogisticregressioneClinicaldatastagesconsumerpreferencesalesforecastingcustomerengagementoddsratio
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a case study of the eClinical pipeline at Intelligent Medical Objects (IMO), a company that tracks sales opportunities through eight stages. The authors build a logistic regression model to find which observable factors predict that a customer reaches the final stage, 'implementation complete,' which is the only point at which IMO can invoice. On a sample of 1,024 opportunities, only three of ten predictors are significant at the 0.001 level: the current dollar amount of the order, the current pipeline stage, and the total number of emails exchanged. The dollar amount carries a negative sign, meaning larger orders are less likely to close; the other two carry positive signs, meaning later-stage customers and heavier email users are more likely to close. A sympathetic reader would care because the authors' goal is to help a sales team focus on the few numbers that actually move revenue, and they conclude that most of the variables the company tracks are irrelevant.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a logistic regression with a logit link, estimated on $j=1,\dots,1024$ opportunities. The outcome is the log odds that a customer reaches stage 8: $\logit(p_j) = \ln[p_j/(1-p_j)] = \mathbf{x}_j' \boldsymbol{\beta}$, where $p_j$ is the probability of winning and $\mathbf{x}_j$ contains the ten predictors. The logit transformation maps probabilities to the real line, so each coefficient $\beta_k$ is the change in the log odds of winning for a one-unit increase in predictor $k$, holding the others constant. This machinery lets the authors compare the strength of predictors through $p$-values and identify which activities and attributes are statistically tied to closing a deal.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to refit the logistic regression without 'current opportunity status' among the predictors, or with the stage recorded at the start of the observation window rather than at the time of outcome measurement; if the large positive coefficient disappears, the paper's central result is an artifact of coding the outcome from the same variable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for IMO's eight-stage opportunity pipeline, the probability of winning a sales contract (reaching stage 8) is determined by only three of the ten variables the company records. Current opportunity status — the numerical stage a customer occupies — and total number of emails both increase the log odds of winning, while current total dollar amount of IMO products decreases them. The remaining variables (new pipeline status value, difference in pipeline status, number of visits, number of phone calls, territory number, channel group ID, and product group ID) are not statistically significant at the 0.001 level. The paper interprets these coefficients as the actionable levers for increasing the number of customers who complete the pipeline, and it draws the practical conclusion that email communication is the only measured activity that matters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a customer's current pipeline stage can serve as an independent predictor of reaching the final stage, even though the outcome is defined by that same stage; if that premise fails, the central finding that 'current opportunity status' is a strong positive driver collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IMO should shift sales effort toward email engagement, since email volume is the only activity type that significantly predicts reaching the final stage.
  • The negative coefficient on current order size suggests that pursuing the largest orders may lower the probability of closure, so focusing on smaller deals could raise the number of completed contracts.
  • Because territory, channel, and product group are not significant, IMO can treat its sales regions and product lines as having similar conversion dynamics rather than tailoring strategies to each.
  • The strong positive coefficient on pipeline stage implies that moving a customer from one stage to the next increases the odds of winning even when no other activity changes, which supports the company's stage-based management approach.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The significance of 'current opportunity status' is circular by construction: the outcome is defined as reaching stage 8, so every customer at stage 8 has $Y=1$ and the predictor is a deterministic indicator of the outcome. Removing it (or measuring stage at an earlier audit) is the natural robustness check the paper does not perform.
  • The paper's own Discussion section concedes that pipeline movements are often logged on a single date, that statuses can be null or skip levels, and that the sample is small (174 single-opportunity customers). These data-quality issues mean the activity-to-movement link the model estimates could be an artifact of how the CRM records events.
  • The observational email coefficient cannot distinguish causation from selection: customers who are already close to buying may email more, so the positive association may simply reflect interest rather than the effect of emails. A randomized encouragement design would settle the direction.
  • Restricting the analysis to customers with a single opportunity excludes the majority of IMO's 28,025 pipeline customers, so the three significant predictors may not generalize to repeat buyers or multi-opportunity accounts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes IMO's eight-stage sales pipeline, using logistic regression to model whether a customer reaches stage 8 (defined as winning a contract) based on ten predictors including current total dollar amount, current opportunity status, new pipeline status, activity counts, and categorical identifiers. The analysis is performed on a subsample of 174 single-opportunity customers drawn from 28,025 total customers. The authors report that only current total amount of IMO products, current opportunity status, and total number of emails are statistically significant at the 0.001 level, and they interpret these as the key factors driving pipeline progression and contract wins.

Significance. If the results were valid, the paper would provide actionable guidance for sales pipeline management, showing which customer attributes and engagement activities predict successful contract completion. The paper has the virtue of being transparent about data quality problems, and it makes a clear, falsifiable claim about which predictors matter. However, the central result is undermined by a circular predictor: the outcome 'reached stage 8' is defined using the same pipeline-stage variable that is the most significant regressor. That artifact, combined with the highly selective sample and the absence of model validation, means the paper's empirical contribution is currently not usable for inference or practice.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Table 2] The outcome Y is defined as reaching stage 8 of the pipeline, and the regressor 'current opportunity status' (x2) is explicitly described as the pipeline stage. A customer at stage 8 therefore has Y = 1 by construction, making x2 a deterministic or near-deterministic function of Y. The coefficient 1.244 with p < 2e-16 in Table 2 is thus a coding artifact rather than evidence of a behavioral effect. The paper's own sentence in Section 3.2, 'the movement of this variable and the dependent variable follow the same direction,' confirms the overlap. This outcome leakage invalidates the headline result that current opportunity status is a significant predictor and also contaminates the other coefficient estimates in the model.
  2. [Section 3.1] The analysis is based on only 174 customers selected from 28,025 total opportunities, restricted to customers with a single opportunity and with pipeline status beyond S-0. The authors justify this by analytical convenience, but they provide no comparison between the selected subsample and the full population, no adjustment for the selection mechanism, and no discussion of how this affects external validity. Since the paper's stated goal is to identify factors influencing progression for the broader pipeline, this selection is load-bearing: the reported significance patterns may be artifacts of the subsample rather than general properties of the pipeline.
  3. [Section 4 and Section 5] The paper reports no measures of model fit, no goodness-of-fit tests, no confusion matrix or calibration, no separation diagnostics, and no multicollinearity assessment. Given that the model includes highly correlated or partially redundant predictors (for instance, 'current opportunity status' and 'new pipeline status value' both measure pipeline position), the individual p-values in Table 2 cannot be interpreted as independent evidence. Without these diagnostics, even the non-circular predictors' apparent significance is not established.
  4. [Section 6] The discussion section states that most pipeline movements are 'either random or driven by factors unrelated to the documented activities in CRM' and that 'most movements are recorded on a single date for each customer' with no documentation. These admissions directly undermine the causal or predictive interpretation of the regression: if pipeline movements are largely random or unrelated to the recorded activities, then the model's significant coefficients for current total amount and total emails cannot be attributed to the proposed mechanisms. The authors acknowledge this limitation but do not perform any robustness checks or alternative analyses to address it.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1] The term 'Data Warhouse' should be 'Data Warehouse'; this is a typo in the list of data sources.
  2. [Section 4] Equation (1) defines the model for j = 1, 2, ..., 1024, but Section 3.1 reports a sample of 174 customers; the source of the 1024 index is not explained and appears inconsistent with the rest of the paper.
  3. [Figure 2 and Section 3.2] The interpretation of Figure 2 is unclear: the text says the probability of winning is nearly 60% while the probability of being in any other status is around 40%, but a binary outcome should sum to 100% across the two displayed categories; the figure's construction and the accompanying percentages need clarification.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Figure 3] The description of Figure 3(b) says 'the probability trend is rising' but also notes an abrupt increase at stage nine, which is not a pipeline stage; the figure's x-axis labels and the text should be reconciled.
  5. [Table 2] The table does not report the sample size, the number of events (Y=1), or any confidence intervals; adding these would help readers assess the precision of the estimates.
  6. [References] The reference list contains numerous self-citations that are not clearly relevant to the present analysis, such as works on path integrals and fish migration; a tighter reference list focusing on CRM, sales pipelines, and logistic regression would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 9.0 of 10

The headline result is an artifact of outcome leakage: the regressor 'current opportunity status' is a deterministic function of the outcome 'reached stage 8,' so its significant coefficient in Table 2 is tautological and contaminates the other estimates.

  1. self definitional [Section 2 (outcome definition), Section 3.2 (predictor definition), Section 4 (Eq. 1 and x2 variable list), Table 2]
    "If a customer reaches stage eight, we classify this as a win and assign a value of 1; otherwise, it is labeled a loss with a value of 0. ... The second variable we use is pipeline status. ... we assign a number from 1 to 8 to represent each stage. The main reason for including this variable is that a customer in a higher pipeline stage has a greater likelihood of winning the contract compared to a customer in a lower stage. Consequently, the movement of this variable and the dependent variable follow the same direction."

    The outcome Y is defined as 1 exactly when the customer reaches stage eight. The regressor x2, 'current opportunity status', is the current pipeline stage coded 1-8 from the same MSCRM opportunity status field. Hence Y = 1 iff x2 equals the winning status (stage 8 or the corresponding status code), so x2 is a deterministic function of Y. The large positive coefficient 1.244 with p < 2e-16 in Table 2 is the coding rule being learned, not an empirical association. Section 3.2 explicitly says x2 and Y move in the same direction. Including this defining variable also invalidates the interpretation of the other coefficients in the same fitted model.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.2 (variable selection), Section 4 (x3 variable list)]
    "The third independent variable we use is new pipeline status value, which represents the current position of a customer in the business pipeline. A customer in a higher stage of the pipeline is more likely to win the contract."

    x3j = 'New pipeline status value' is described as the current position of the customer in the business pipeline, i.e., the same pipeline-stage information used to define the outcome. If 'new pipeline status value' is the current stage, then Y is again a threshold function of x3, so the variable is definitionally tied to the outcome and its inclusion is redundant and leaky. The fact that its coefficient is not significant in Table 2 is an artifact of its collinearity with x2, since both are derived from the same status field, not evidence about a distinct predictor.

full rationale

The paper's central claim reduces by construction. The outcome is defined from the pipeline stage, and the most significant predictor is the same pipeline stage variable. This is direct outcome leakage, not a subtle statistical concern: knowing 'current opportunity status' determines whether the customer has reached stage eight, so the coefficient 1.244 in Table 2 is forced by the coding of Y, not discovered from data. Moreover, because this deterministic predictor is included in the model, the coefficients and p-values for current total amount and total emails cannot be interpreted as independent evidence; multicollinearity and separation can drive or mask their apparent significance. The paper's own Section 6 admits that pipeline movements are poorly documented, often null, frequently recorded on a single day, and 'mostly random or driven by factors unrelated to the documented activities in CRM.' That admission further weakens any non-leaky findings, but the circularity score is driven by the definitional overlap between x2 and Y. The rest of the paper is not dependent on a self-citation chain, and the logistic-regression methodology is standard; the defect is that the headline result is an artifact of the outcome definition. Therefore the appropriate score is 9: the result is forced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on fitted regression coefficients (all 10 predictors plus intercept). More importantly, the analysis requires that the current pipeline stage be a distinct predictor from the outcome, which is false by construction. It also requires the small, selected subset to be representative and the CRM data to be accurate, both of which are questionable given the paper's own admissions.

free parameters (11)
  • Intercept (beta_0) = -6.7470
    Estimated logistic regression intercept from Table 2, fitted to 174 observations.
  • Current total amount coefficient (beta_1) = -2.912e-5
    Estimated effect of dollar amount on log-odds of winning from Table 2.
  • Current opportunity status coefficient (beta_2) = 1.2440
    Estimated effect of current stage on log-odds of winning from Table 2.
  • New pipeline status value coefficient (beta_3) = -9.997e-2
    Estimated effect of new status value from Table 2.
  • Difference in pipeline coefficient (beta_4) = -0.1420
    Estimated effect of status difference from Table 2.
  • Total number of emails coefficient (beta_5) = 0.01397
    Estimated effect of email count from Table 2.
  • Total number of visits coefficient (beta_6) = 0.04311
    Estimated effect of visit count from Table 2.
  • Total number of phone calls coefficient (beta_7) = -0.05183
    Estimated effect of call count from Table 2.
  • Territory number coefficient (beta_8) = 1.861e-3
    Estimated effect of territory from Table 2.
  • Channel group dimension ID coefficient (beta_9) = 0.0183
    Estimated effect of channel group from Table 2.
  • Product group ID coefficient (beta_10) = 0.0874
    Estimated effect of product group from Table 2.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Logistic regression model assumptions hold: linearity in log-odds, independence of observations, no severe multicollinearity.
    The paper applies a standard logistic regression (Section 4) without checking these assumptions, but they are needed for the p-values to be valid.
  • domain assumption The 174 single-opportunity customers represent the population of interest.
    Section 3.1 narrows the dataset from 28,025 customers to 174 without evidence that this subset is representative, yet the regression is run only on this subset.
  • domain assumption The recorded pipeline statuses and activity counts are accurate.
    The Discussion (Section 6) states that null statuses, skipped levels, and single-date movements occur and are unexplained, so the data may misrepresent true pipeline progression.
  • ad hoc to paper Current opportunity status and the outcome 'reached stage 8' are distinct variables.
    This is required for the regression to be informative, but it is false by construction: the outcome is defined from the same status variable (Sections 2 and 3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On factors influencing consumer preference in pipeline stages: an experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/435NX5VE

@misc{pith2026250103418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On factors influencing consumer preference in pipeline stages: an experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/435NX5VE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03418}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a case study on the eClinical data of Intelligent Medical Objects, which currently employs eight pipeline stages. Historically, the pipeline stage progresses inversely with the number of customers. Our objective is to identify the key factors that significantly affect consumer presences at the more advanced stages of the pipeline. Logistic regression is utilized for this analysis. This technique estimates the probability of an event occurring, enabling researchers to evaluate how various factors influence specific outcomes. Widely applied across disciplines such as medicine, finance, and social sciences, logistic regression is particularly useful for classification tasks and identifying the importance of predictors, thus supporting data-driven decision-making. In this study, logistic regression is used to model the likelihood of reaching the eighth pipeline stage as the dependent variable, revealing that only a few independent variables significantly contribute to explaining this outcome.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03418 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulation of a logistic regression. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In horizontal axis 1 stands for the contract has been won, 0 otherwise. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histograms of all and current stages of business pipeline status [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Difference in status with probabilities; negative values represent customers’ backward move [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Exploring the Interplay of Adiposity, Ethnicity, and Hormone Receptor Profiles in Breast Cancer Subtypes

    q-bio.QM 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper reports higher BMI and Black race as predictors of Luminal B breast cancer with obesity as a partial mediator, but the evidence is a simulation with contradictory results.

  2. Predictive Significance of CD276/B7-H3 Expression in Baseline Biopsies of Advanced Prostate Carcinoma

    q-bio.QM 2025-08 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    High B7-H3 expression in initial prostate biopsy samples is associated with shorter survival and more aggressive disease in men with advanced prostate cancer.

  3. An optimal level of Stubbornness to win a soccer match

    math.OC 2025-01 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    The paper derives a closed-form expression for a soccer player's optimal stubbornness from a custom stochastic model, but the derivation is internally inconsistent and unvalidated.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Austin, P. C. (2007). A comparison of regression trees, logistic regression, generalized additive models, and multivariate adaptive regression splines for predicting ami mortality. Statistics in medicine , 26(15):2937--2957. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2770

    work page doi:10.1002/sim.2770 2007

  2. [2]

    Bewick, V., Cheek, L., and Ball, J. (2005). Statistics review 14: Logistic regression. Critical care , 9:1--7. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc3045

    doi:10.1186/cc3045 2005

  3. [3]

    Boyle, M. J. (2004). Using crm software effectively. The CPA Journal , 74(7):17. https://www.proquest.com/openview/eb6166447c26d6f2c7556d97c2077927/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41798

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    A., Pramanik, P., Marbut, S

    Dasgupta, S., Acharya, S., Khan, M. A., Pramanik, P., Marbut, S. M., Yunus, F., Galeas, J. N., Singh, S., Singh, A. P., and Dasgupta, S. (2023). Frequent loss of cacna1c, a calcium voltage-gated channel subunit is associated with lung adenocarcinoma progression and poor prognosis. Cancer Research , 83(7\_Supplement):3318--3318. https://doi.org/10.1158/153...

    work page doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-3318 2023

  5. [5]

    Gu, C. (2013). Smoothing spline ANOVA models , volume 297. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4757-3683-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3683-0 2013

  6. [6]

    L., Vikramdeo, K

    Hertweck, K. L., Vikramdeo, K. S., Galeas, J. N., Marbut, S. M., Pramanik, P., Yunus, F., Singh, S., Singh, A. P., and Dasgupta, S. (2023). Clinicopathological significance of unraveling mitochondrial pathway alterations in non-small-cell lung cancer. The FASEB Journal , 37(7):e23018. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.202201724RR

    work page doi:10.1096/fj.202201724rr 2023

  7. [7]

    Hua, L., Polansky, A., and Pramanik, P. (2019). Assessing bivariate tail non-exchangeable dependence. Statistics & Probability Letters , 155:108556

    2019

  8. [8]

    and Prokhorov, A

    Ibragimov, R. and Prokhorov, A. (2017). Heavy tails and copulas: topics in dependence modelling in economics and finance . World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814689809.0001

    work page arXiv 2017

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    P., Sarkar, C., and Chakroborty, D

    Kakkat, S., Pramanik, P., Singh, S., Singh, A. P., Sarkar, C., and Chakroborty, D. (2023). Cardiovascular complications in patients with prostate cancer: Potential molecular connections. International Journal of Molecular Sciences , 24(8):6984. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24086984

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Acharya, S., Anand, S., Sameeta, F., Pramanik, P., Keel, C., Singh, S., Carter, J

    Khan, M. A., Acharya, S., Anand, S., Sameeta, F., Pramanik, P., Keel, C., Singh, S., Carter, J. E., Dasgupta, S., and Singh, A. P. (2023). Myb exhibits racially disparate expression, clinicopathologic association, and predictive potential for biochemical recurrence in prostate...

    2023

  3. [11]

    A., Acharya, S., Kreitz, N., Anand, S., Sameeta, F., Pramanik, P., Keel, C., Singh, S., Carter, J., Dasgupta, S., et al

    Khan, M. A., Acharya, S., Kreitz, N., Anand, S., Sameeta, F., Pramanik, P., Keel, C., Singh, S., Carter, J., Dasgupta, S., et al. (2024). Mp60-05 myb exhibits racially disparate expression and clinicopathologic association and is a promising predictor of biochemical recurrence...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Polansky, A. M. and Pramanik, P. (2021). A motif building process for simulating random networks. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 162:107263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2021.107263

    2021

  5. [13]

    Pramanik, P. (2016). Tail non-exchangeability . Northern Illinois University. http://libproxy.usouthal.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/tail-non-exchangeability/docview/1824370230/se-2?accountid=14672

    2016

  6. [14]

    Pramanik, P. (2020). Optimization of market stochastic dynamics. In SN Operations Research Forum , volume 1, pages 1--17. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-020-00028-x

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Pramanik, P. (2021a). Effects of water currents on fish migration through a feynman-type path integral approach under 8/3 liouville-like quantum gravity surfaces. Theory in Biosciences , 140(2):205--223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-021-00345-7

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Pramanik, P. (2021b). Optimization of Dynamic Objective Functions Using Path Integrals . PhD thesis, Northern Illinois University. http://libproxy.usouthal.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/optimization-dynamic-objective-functions-using/docview/255786...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Pramanik, P. (2022a). On lock-down control of a pandemic model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04248 . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.04248

    2022 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Pramanik, P. (2022b). Stochastic control of a sir model with non-linear incidence rate through euclidean path integral. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.13733 . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.13733

    2022 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Pramanik, P. (2023a). Consensus as a nash equilibrium of a stochastic differential game. European Journal of Statistics , 3:10--10. https://doi.org/10.28924/ada/stat.3.10

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Pramanik, P. (2023b). Optimal lock-down intensity: A stochastic pandemic control approach of path integral. Computational and Mathematical Biophysics , 11(1):20230110. https://doi.org/10.1515/cmb-2023-0110

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Pramanik, P. (2023c). Path integral control in infectious disease modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02113 . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.02113

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Pramanik, P. (2023d). Path integral control of a stochastic multi-risk sir pandemic model. Theory in Biosciences , pages 1--36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-023-00388-y

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Pramanik, P. (2024a). Dependence on tail copula. J , 7(2):127--152. https://doi.org/10.3390/j7020008

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Pramanik, P. (2024b). Estimation of optimal lock-down and vaccination rate of a stochastic sir model: A mathematical approach. European Journal of Statistics , 4:3--3. https://doi.org/10.28924/ada/stat.4.3

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Pramanik, P. (2024c). Measuring asymmetric tails under copula distributions. European Journal of Statistics , 4:7--7. https://doi.org/10.28924/ada/stat.4.7

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    L., and Ghanam, R

    Pramanik, P., Boone, E. L., and Ghanam, R. A. (2024). Parametric estimation in fractional stochastic differential equation. Stats , 7(3):745. https://doi.org/10.3390/stats7030045

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    and Maity, A

    Pramanik, P. and Maity, A. K. (2024). Bayes factor of zero inflated models under jeffereys prior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03649 . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.03649

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    and Polansky, A

    Pramanik, P. and Polansky, A. M. (2020). Motivation to run in one-day cricket. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.11099 . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.11099

    2020 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    and Polansky, A

    Pramanik, P. and Polansky, A. M. (2021). Optimal estimation of brownian penalized regression coefficients. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02291 . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.02291

    2021 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    and Polansky, A

    Pramanik, P. and Polansky, A. M. (2023a). Optimization of a dynamic profit function using euclidean path integral. SN Business & Economics , 4(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-023-00602-5

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    and Polansky, A

    Pramanik, P. and Polansky, A. M. (2023b). Scoring a goal optimally in a soccer game under liouville-like quantum gravity action. Operations Research Forum , 4(3):66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-023-00247-y

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    and Polansky, A

    Pramanik, P. and Polansky, A. M. (2023c). Semicooperation under curved strategy spacetime. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology , pages 1--35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2023.2180002

    2023

  25. [33]

    and Polansky, A

    Pramanik, P. and Polansky, A. M. (2024). Motivation to run in one-day cricket. Mathematics , 12(17):2739. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12172739

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Vikramdeo, K., Anand, S., Sudan, S., Pramanik, P., Singh, S., Godwin, A., Singh, A., and Dasgupta, S. (2024). Abstract po3-16-05: Mitochondrial dna mutation detection in tumors and circulating extracellular vesicles of triple negative breast cancer patients for biomarker devel...

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Anand, S., Sudan, S

    Vikramdeo, K. S., Anand, S., Sudan, S. K., Pramanik, P., Singh, S., Godwin, A. K., Singh, A. P., and Dasgupta, S. (2023). Profiling mitochondrial dna mutations in tumors and circulating extracellular vesicles of triple-negative breast cancer patients for potential biomarker de...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.