Exact Nonparametric Two-Sample Homogeneity Tests for Possibly Discrete Distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans ce texte, nous étudions plusieurs tests pour l'égalité de deux distributions inconnues.Deux de ces tests sont basés sur des fonctions de distribution empiriques, trois autres sur des estimateurs non paramétriques de fonctions de densité et les trois derniers sur des moments empiriques.Nous proposons de contrôler la taille des tests (sous des hypothèses non paramétriques) en employant des versions permutationnelles de ces tests conjointement avec la méthode des tests de Monte Carlo ajustée pour tenir compte de la possibilité de distributions discontinues.Nous proposons aussi une méthode pour combiner plusieurs de ces tests, le niveau de ces procédures étant aussi contrôlé par la technique des tests de Monte Carlo, laquelle possède de meilleures propriétés de puissance que les tests individuels combinés.Finalement, nous montrons dans une étude de simulation que la technique suggérée contrôle parfaitement la taille des différents tests considérés et que les nouveaux tests proposés peuvent fournir de notables améliorations de puissance.
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 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".