On Using Truncated Sequential Probability Ratio Test Boundaries for Monte Carlo Implementation of Hypothesis Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When designing programs or software for the implementation of Monte Carlo (MC) hypothesis tests, we can save computation time by using sequential stopping boundaries. Such boundaries imply stopping resampling after relatively few replications if the early replications indicate a very large or very small p-value. We study a truncated sequential probability ratio test (SPRT) boundary and provide a tractable algorithm to implement it. We review two properties desired of any MC p-value, the validity of the p-value and a small resampling risk, where resampling risk is the probability that the accept/reject decision will be different than the decision from complete enumeration. We show how the algorithm can be used to calculate a valid p-value and confidence intervals for any truncated SPRT boundary. We show that a class of SPRT boundaries is minimax with respect to resampling risk and recommend a truncated version of boundaries in that class by comparing their resampling risk (RR) to the RR of fixed boundaries with the same maximum resample size. We study the lack of validity of some simple estimators of p-values and offer a new simple valid p-value for the recommended truncated SPRT boundary. We explore the use of these methods in a practical example and provide the MChtest R package to perform the methods.
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 | 0.042 | 0.284 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".