On a new goodness‐of‐fit process for families of copulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A goodness‐of‐fit procedure is proposed for parametric families of copulas. The new test statistics are functionals of an empirical process based on the theoretical and sample versions of Spearman's dependence function. Conditions under which this empirical process converges weakly are seen to hold for many families including the Gaussian, Frank, and generalized Farlie–Gumbel–Morgenstern systems of distributions, as well as the models with singular components described by Durante [Durante ( 2007 ) Comptes Rendus Mathématique. Académie des Sciences. Paris, 344, 195–198]. Thanks to a parametric bootstrap method that allows to compute valid P‐values, it is shown empirically that tests based on Cramér–von Mises distances keep their size under the null hypothesis. Simulations attesting the power of the newly proposed tests, comparisons with competing procedures and complete analyses of real hydrological and financial data sets are presented. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 37: 80‐101; 2009 © 2009 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.036 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".