MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152173558 · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00273

A Modified Likelihood Ratio Test for Homogeneity in Finite Mixture Models

2001· article· en· W2152173558 on OpenAlexafffund
Hanfeng Chen, Jiahua Chen, John D. Kalbfleisch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHomogeneity (statistics)MathematicsLikelihood-ratio testQuantileAsymptotic distributionParametric statisticsStatisticsScore testApplied mathematicsNull distributionLimitingStatisticNull hypothesisParametric modelTest statisticRatio testKernel density estimationStatistical hypothesis testingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Testing for homogeneity in finite mixture models has been investigated by many researchers. The asymptotic null distribution of the likelihood ratio test (LRT) is very complex and difficult to use in practice. We propose a modified LRT for homogeneity in finite mixture models with a general parametric kernel distribution family. The modified LRT has a χ-type of null limiting distribution and is asymptotically most powerful under local alternatives. Simulations show that it performs better than competing tests. They also reveal that the limiting distribution with some adjustment can satisfactorily approximate the quantiles of the test statistic, even for moderate sample sizes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.237
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.237
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations222
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology)Same topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207