MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1504730822 · doi:10.1002/cjs.10122

Tuning the EM‐test for finite mixture models

2011· article· en· W1504730822 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jiahua Chen, Pengfei Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of WaterlooNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceApplied mathematicsLimitingRank (graph theory)Simple (philosophy)Distribution (mathematics)Value (mathematics)Asymptotic distributionStatistical hypothesis testingAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsStatisticsMachine learningEngineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There has been rapid progress in developing effective and easy‐to‐use tests of the order of a finite mixture model. The EM‐test is the latest to join the rank. It has a relatively simple limiting distribution and enjoys broad applicability. Based on asymptotic theory, the P ‐value of the EM‐test is approximated via its limiting distribution. The built‐in tuning parameter has an important influence on the approximation precision. Thus, choosing an appropriate value for this parameter is important for fully realizing the advantages of the EM‐test. In this article, we develop a novel computer‐experiment approach to address this issue. Through designed experiments, we derive a number of empirical formulas for the tuning parameter. Extensive validation simulation shows that these formulas work well in terms of providing accurate type I errors. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 39: 389–404; 2011 © 2011 Statistical Society of Canada

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207