Rank-based inference for bivariate extreme-value copulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consider a continuous random pair (X, Y) whose dependence is characterized by an extreme-value copula with Pickands dependence function A. When the marginal distributions of X and Y are known, several consistent estimators of A are available. Most of them are variants of the estimators due to Pickands [Bull. Inst. Internat. Statist. 49 (1981) 859–878] and Capéraà, Fougères and Genest [Biometrika 84 (1997) 567–577]. In this paper, rank-based versions of these estimators are proposed for the more common case where the margins of X and Y are unknown. Results on the limit behavior of a class of weighted bivariate empirical processes are used to show the consistency and asymptotic normality of these rank-based estimators. Their finite- and large-sample performance is then compared to that of their known-margin analogues, as well as with endpoint-corrected versions thereof. Explicit formulas and consistent estimates for their asymptotic variances are also given.
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 | 0.014 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".