Goodness‐of‐fit Procedures for Copula Models Based on the Probability Integral Transformation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Wang & Wells [ J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 95 (2000) 62] describe a non‐parametric approach for checking whether the dependence structure of a random sample of censored bivariate data is appropriately modelled by a given family of Archimedean copulas. Their procedure is based on a truncated version of the Kendall process introduced by Genest & Rivest [ J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 88 (1993) 1034] and later studied by Barbe et al . [ J. Multivariate Anal. 58 (1996) 197]. Although Wang & Wells (2000) determine the asymptotic behaviour of their truncated process, their model selection method is based exclusively on the observed value of its L 2 ‐norm. This paper shows how to compute asymptotic p ‐values for various goodness‐of‐fit test statistics based on a non‐truncated version of Kendall's process. Conditions for weak convergence are met in the most common copula models, whether Archimedean or not. The empirical behaviour of the proposed goodness‐of‐fit tests is studied by simulation, and power comparisons are made with a test proposed by Shih [ Biometrika 85 (1998) 189] for the gamma frailty family.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it