Testing for Restricted Stochastic Dominance: Some Further Results
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensions are presented to the results of Davidson and Duclos (2007), whereby the null hypothesis of restricted stochastic non dominance can be tested by both asymptotic and bootstrap tests, the latter having considerably better properties as regards both size and power. In this paper, the methodology is extended to tests of higher-order stochastic dominance. It is seen that, unlike the first-order case, a numerical nonlinear optimisation problem has to be solved in order to construct the bootstrap DGP. Conditions are provided for a solution to exist for this problem, and efficient numerical algorithms are laid out. The empirically important case in which the samples to be compared are correlated is also treated, both for first-order and for higher-order dominance. For all of these extensions, the bootstrap algorithm is presented. Simulation experiments show that the bootstrap tests perform considerably better than asymptotic tests, and yield reliable inference in moderately sized samples.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it