Mixture Distributions Based Methods of Calibration for the Empirical Log-Likelihood Ratio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Empirical likelihood ratio confidence regions based on the chi-square calibration suffer from an undercoverage problem in that their actual coverage levels tend to be lower than the nominal levels. The finite sample distribution of the empirical log-likelihood ratio is recognized to have a mixture structure with a continuous component on [0, + ∞) and a point mass at + ∞. The undercoverage problem of the Chi-square calibration is partly due to its use of the continuous Chi-square distribution to approximate the mixture distribution of the empirical log-likelihood ratio. In this article, we propose two new methods of calibration which will take advantage of the mixture structure; we construct two new mixture distributions by using the F and chi-square distributions and use these to approximate the mixture distributions of the empirical log-likelihood ratio. The new methods of calibration are asymptotically equivalent to the chi-square calibration. But the new methods, in particular the F mixture based method, can be substantially more accurate than the chi-square calibration for small and moderately large sample sizes. The new methods are also as easy to use as the chi-square calibration. Keywords: Chi-square calibrationCoverage probabilityEmpirical likelihood ratio confidence region F distributionFinite sample distributionsMixture distributionsMathematics Subject Classification: Primary 62E20Secondary 62G15 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank a referee whose helpful comments have led to improvements in this article. The work of the second author was supported by the National Science and Engineering Research Council 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".