MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073745063 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550360402

Testing for two states in a hidden Markov model

2008· article· en· W2073745063 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jörn Dannemann, Hajo Holzmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHidden Markov modelLikelihood-ratio testMathematicsInferenceMarginal likelihoodTest statisticMarginal distributionStatisticApplied mathematicsStatistical hypothesis testingMarkov modelHidden semi-Markov modelStatisticsChenMarkov chainComputer scienceVariable-order Markov modelMaximum likelihoodArtificial intelligenceRandom variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors consider hidden Markov models (HMMs) whose latent process has m ≥ 2 states and whose state‐dependent distributions arise from a general one‐parameter family. They propose a test of the hypothesis m = 2. Their procedure is an extension to HMMs of the modified likelihood ratio statistic proposed by Chen, Chen & Kalbfleisch (2004) for testing two states in a finite mixture. The authors determine the asymptotic distribution of their test under the hypothesis m = 2 and investigate its finite‐sample properties in a simulation study. Their test is based on inference for the marginal mixture distribution of the HMM. In order to illustrate the additional difficulties due to the dependence structure of the HMM, they show how to test general regular hypotheses on the marginal mixture of HMMs via a quasi‐modified likelihood ratio. They also discuss two applications.

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)0.144
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207