On the Asymptotic Distribution of Pearson’s <i>X</i><sup>2</sup> in Cross-Validation Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In categorical data analysis, two-sample cross-validation is used not only for model selection but also to obtain a realistic impression of the overall predictive effectiveness of the model. The latter is of particular importance in the case of highly parametrized models capable of capturing every idiosyncracy of the calibrating sample. We show that for maximum likelihood estimators or other asymptotically efficient estimators Pearson’s X2 is not asymptotically chi-square in the two-sample cross-validation framework due to extra variability induced by using different samples for estimation and goodness-of-fit testing. We propose an alternative test statistic, X2xval, obtained as a modification of X2 which is asymptotically chi-square with C - 1 degrees of freedom in cross-validation samples. Stochastically, X2xval≤ X2. Furthermore, the use of X2 instead of X2xval with a χ2C - 1 reference distribution may provide an unduly poor impression of fit of the model in the cross-validation sample.
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 | 0.101 | 0.338 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".