Marginal Likelihood-based One-sided LR Test for Testing Higher Order Autocorrelation in Presence of Nuisance Parameters-A Distance Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most of the cases, only a subvector of the parameters is tested in a model. The remaining parameters arise in the tests as nuisance parameters. The presence of nuisance parameters causes biases in key estimates used in the tests. So inferences made on the presence of nuisance parameters may lead to less accurate conclusions. Even the presence of nuisance parameters can destroy the test. Thus in eliminating the influence of nuisance parameters from the test can improve the tests' performance. The effect of the nuisance parameters can be eliminated by the marginal likelihood, conditional likelihood, canonical likelihood, profile likelihood and Bayesian tests. This paper is concerned with marginal likelihood-based test for eliminating the influence of nuisance parameters. In general, existing one-sided and two-sided tests for autocorrelation are tested only autocorrelation coefficients but not the regression coefficients in the model. So we proposed a distance-based marginal likelihood one-sided Likelihood Ratio (DMLR) test in eliminating the influence of nuisance parameters for testing higher order autocorrelation with one-sided alternatives in linear regression model using marginal likelihood and distance-based approach. Monte Carlo simulations are conducted to compare power properties of the proposed DMLR test with their respective conventional counterparts. It is found that the DMLR test shows substantially improved power for most of cases considered.
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 | 0.017 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".