A new family of random graphs for testing spatial segregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The authors discuss a graph‐based approach for testing spatial point patterns. This approach falls under the category of data‐random graphs, which have been introduced and used for statistical pattern recognition in recent years. The authors address specifically the problem of testing complete spatial randomness against spatial patterns of segregation or association between two or more classes of points on the plane. To this end, they use a particular type of parameterized random digraph called a proximity catch digraph (PCD) which is based on relative positions of the data points from various classes. The statistic employed is the relative density of the PCD, which is a U ‐statistic when scaled properly. The authors derive the limiting distribution of the relative density, using the standard asymptotic theory of U ‐statistics. They evaluate the finite‐sample performance of their test statistic by Monte Carlo simulations and assess its asymptotic performance via Pitman's asymptotic efficiency, thereby yielding the optimal parameters for testing. They further stress that their methodology remains valid for data in higher dimensions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".