Testing Exponentiality Versus Pareto Distribution via Likelihood Ratio
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
We consider the problem of maximum likelihood estimation of the parameters of the Pareto Type II (Lomax) distribution. We show that in certain parametrization and after modification of the parameter space to include exponential distribution as a special case, the MLEs of parameters always exist. Moreover, the MLEs have a non standard asymptotic distribution in the exponential case due to the lack of regularity. Further, we develop a likelihood ratio test for exponentiality versus Pareto II distribution. We emphasize that this problem is non standard, and the limiting null distribution of the deviance statistic in not chi-square. We derive relevant asymptotic theory as well as a convenient computational formula for the critical values for the test. An empirical power study and power comparisons with other tests are also provided. A problem from climatology involving precipitation data from hundreds of meteorological stations across North America provides a motivation for and an illustration of the new test.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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