Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers two similar likelihood-based test statistics for comparing two fixed trees, the Kishino-Hasegawa (KH) test statistic and the likelihood ratio (LR) statistic, as well as a number of different methods for determining thresholds to declare a significant result. An explanation is given for why the KH test, which uses the KH test statistic and normal theory thresholds, need not give correct type I error probabilities under the appropriate null hypothesis. Simulations show that the KH test tends to give much smaller type I error probabilities than expected. The article presents a computationally efficient normal-theory parametric bootstrap method for determining better KH test statistic thresholds. For the LR statistic, existing mixture of chi-squares results for determining thresholds are extended to cases in which a tree with two or three zero edge-lengths exhibits the two trees being compared. The resulting chi-bar test and use of the KH test statistic with normal bootstrap are shown through simulation to give good performance but are more difficult to implement than the KH test. Two conservative approaches are presented which require only log likelihoods and simple chi-square thresholds. While they did not perform as well as chi-bar and normal bootstrap methods in the simulations considered, they gave better performance than the KH test and have just as simple an implementation. As a by-product of parametric bootstrap considerations, an adjustment to the Swofford-Olsen-Waddell-Hillis (SOWH) test is proposed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".