MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1433192250 · doi:10.1080/07474938.2018.1514023

Generalized information matrix tests for copulas

2019· article· en· W1433192250 on OpenAlexaff
Artem Prokhorov, Ulf Schepsmeier, Yajing Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueEconometric Reviews · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersRussian Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsHessian matrixVine copulaCopula (linguistics)Nonparametric statisticsGoodness of fitParametric statisticsApplied mathematicsFisher informationStatistical hypothesis testingMonte Carlo methodStatisticsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a family of goodness-of-fit tests for copulas. The tests use generalizations of the information matrix (IM) equality of White and so relate to the copula test proposed by Huang and Prokhorov. The idea is that eigenspectrum-based statements of the IM equality reduce the degrees of freedom of the test’s asymptotic distribution and lead to better size-power properties, even in high dimensions. The gains are especially pronounced for vine copulas, where additional benefits come from simplifications of score functions and the Hessian. We derive the asymptotic distribution of the generalized tests, accounting for the nonparametric estimation of the marginals and apply a parametric bootstrap procedure, valid when asymptotic critical values are inaccurate. In Monte Carlo simulations, we study the behavior of the new tests, compare them with several Cramer–von Mises type tests and confirm the desired properties of the new tests in high dimensions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconometric ReviewsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207