Testing uniformity for the case of a planar unknown support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new test is proposed for the hypothesis of uniformity on bi‐dimensional supports. The procedure is an adaptation of the “distance to boundary test” (DB test) proposed in Berrendero, Cuevas, & Vázquez‐Grande (2006). This new version of the DB test, called DBU test, allows us (as a novel, interesting feature) to deal with the case where the support S of the underlying distribution is unknown. This means that S is not specified in the null hypothesis so that, in fact, we test the null hypothesis that the underlying distribution is uniform on some support S belonging to a given class ${\cal C}$ . We pay special attention to the case that ${\cal C}$ is either the class of compact convex supports or the (broader) class of compact λ‐convex supports (also called r‐convex or α‐convex in the literature). The basic idea is to apply the DB test in a sort of plug‐in version, where the support S is approximated by using methods of set estimation. The DBU method is analysed from both the theoretical and practical point of view, via some asymptotic results and a simulation study, respectively. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 40: 378–395; 2012 © 2012 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".