A simulation study on the performance of the sign test, Mann-Whitney test, Hodges-Lehmann estimator and control charts for Normal and Weibull data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new method to chart the Hodges-Lehmann estimator control chart is proposed in this study.The evaluation of the three nonparametric control charts -the Sign test (ST), Mann-Whitney (MW), and the Hodges-Lehmann estimator (HL), for the known process distribution using normal and Weibull data represent the symmetric and asymmetric shapes of the process based on the original method through the 10000 run lengths simulation.The result illustrates that the average run length performance of the ST and MW correspond to their respective test statistics but for HL's performance, the result indicates that the average run length is much greater than that derived from Wilcoxon signed rank statistics.The Hodges-Lehmann estimator control chart by the new approach for the known process distribution will be the alternative method for the process that needs to robust outliers' properties from this statistics.In addition, the simulation demonstrates that the performances of the Sign test (ST) from mean and median processes are varied in the skewed distribution, and moreover, the Sign test (ST) from the median process represents more accurate performance.Meanwhile, for the control groups, MW generated within control limits or without restriction shows slightly different performance.The performance of dual scheme for the above-mentioned variable parameters control charts also produce the weighted average values that effect from the tight control scheme to the regular control scheme.
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".