Tw o-sample Hotelling's T 2 statistics based on the functional Mahalanobis semi-distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The comparison of the means of two independent samples is one of the most popular problems in real-world data analysis. In the multivariate context, two-sample Hotelling’s T 2 frequently used to test the equality of means of two independent Gaussian random samples assuming either the same or a different covariance matrix. In this paper, we derive two-sample Hotelling’s T 2 from two functional distributions. The statistics that we propose are based on the functional Mahalanobis semi-distance and, under certain conditions, their asymptotic distributions are chisquared, regardless the distribution of the functional random samples. Additionally, we provide the link between the two-sample Hotelling’s T 2 semi-distance and statistics based on the functional principal components semi-distance. A Monte Carlo study indicates that the twosample Hotelling’s T 2 of power those based on the functional principal components semidistance. We analyze a data set of daily temperature records of 35 Canadian weather stations over a year with the goal of testing whether or not the mean temperature functions of the stations in the Eastern and Western Canada regions are equal. The results appear to indicate differences between both regions that are not found with statistics based on the functional principal components semi-distance.
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 | 0.012 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".