MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277372542 · doi:10.22606/jas.2017.21007

Maximum L<sub><i>q</i></sub>-likelihood Estimation for Gamma Distributions

2017· article· en· W2277372542 on OpenAlex
Jingjing Wu, Nana Xing, Shawn Liu

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Statistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStatistical Mechanics and Entropy
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEstimatorMathematicsStatisticsSample size determinationMaximum likelihoodPrinciple of maximum entropyEstimation theoryRobustness (evolution)Monte Carlo methodApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In statistics, maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) is a method of estimating the parameters of a statistical model. Standard large sample theory guarantees asymptotic efficiency of MLE. On the other hand, MLE does not perform as well as expected for moderate or small sample size. In 2010, a new parameter estimator based on nonextensive entropy ([1]), named Maximum Lq-likelihood Estimator (MLqE), was first introduced and studied by MLqE is an extension of MLE which introduces a distortion parameter q to make the estimation more adaptive. The purpose of this work is to examine this methodology for gamma distributions that are widely used in engineering, science and business to model continuous but skewed distributions. For specifically standard gamma models, we look at the MLqE's asymptotics, finite sample performance in terms of efficiency and robustness, and the choice of the distortion parameter q. We investigate these aspects of MLqE and compare it with MLE in parameter estimation and tail probability estimation, through both Monte Carlo simulation and a real data analysis. Our results show that, with appropriately chosen q, MLqE and MLE perform competitively for large sample sizes while MLqE outperforms MLE for small or moderate sample sizes in terms of reducing MSE. In addition, MLqE with q < 1 has much better robustness properties than MLE when outlying observations are present.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.271 · 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