MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060831937 · doi:10.1198/jasa.2010.tm09032

Testing the Order of a Finite Mixture

2010· article· en· W2060831937 on OpenAlexaff
Pengfei Li, Jiahua Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomogeneity (statistics)MathematicsNull hypothesisLikelihood-ratio testApplied mathematicsStatistical hypothesis testingLimitingNull (SQL)StatisticsStatistical powerNull distributionAlternative hypothesisRatio testTest statisticComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The order is an important parameter in applications of finite mixture models. Yet designing a valid and easy-to-use statistical test for the order is challenging. To date, most results on hypothesis tests have focused on homogeneity, a special case where the null model has order 1. In this work, we designed an EM test for the general problem of testing the null hypothesis of order m0 versus an alternative hypothesis of order larger than m0. For any positive integer m0, the null limiting distribution of the EM test is a mixture of χ2 distributions. The weights in this mixture-limiting distribution can be conveniently computed. Compared with related results, the new result is obtained under much less strict requirements on the component distribution and the parameter space. Extensive simulation studies show that the limiting distributions closely match the finite sample distributions of the EM test. When m0 = 2, the new EM test has more accurate type I errors and matches the power of the modified likelihood ratio test. When m0 = 3, there is a clear indication that the test has good power properties. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations66
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207