Positive quadrant dependence tests for copulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper the interest is in testing the null hypothesis of positive quadrant dependence (PQD) between two random variables. Such a testing problem is important since prior knowledge of PQD is a qualitative restriction that should be taken into account in further statistical analysis, for example, when choosing an appropriate copula function to model the dependence structure. The key methodology of the proposed testing procedures consists of evaluating a “distance” between a nonparametric estimator of a copula and the independence copula, which serves as a reference case in the whole set of copulas having the PQD property. Choices of appropriate distances and nonparametric estimators of copula are discussed, and the proposed methods are compared with testing procedures based on bootstrap and multiplier techniques. The consistency of the testing procedures is established. In a simulation study the authors investigate the finite sample size and power performances of three types of test statistics, Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Cramér–von‐Mises, and Anderson–Darling statistics, together with several nonparametric estimators of a copula, including recently developed kernel type estimators. Finally, they apply the testing procedures on some real data. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 38: 555–581; 2010 © 2010 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 | 0.235 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".