MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346716641 · doi:10.3390/sym8050031

On Consistent Nonparametric Statistical Tests of Symmetry Hypotheses

2016· article· en· W2346716641 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Quessy

Bibliographic record

VenueSymmetry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSymmetry (geometry)Nonparametric statisticsBivariate analysisStatistical hypothesis testingMathematicsUnivariateDegenerate energy levelsStatisticsStatistical physicsApplied mathematicsMultivariate statisticsPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being able to formally test for symmetry hypotheses is an important topic in many fields, including environmental and physical sciences. In this paper, one concentrates on a large family of nonparametric tests of symmetry based on Cramér–von Mises statistics computed from empirical distribution and characteristic functions. These tests possess the highly desirable property of being universally consistent in the sense that they detect any kind of departure from symmetry as the sample size becomes large. The asymptotic behaviour of these test statistics under symmetry is deduced from the theory of first-order degenerate V-statistics. The issue of computing valid p-values is tackled using the multiplier bootstrap method suitably adapted to V-statistics, yielding elegant, easy-to-compute and quick procedures for testing symmetry. A special focus is put on tests of univariate symmetry, bivariate exchangeability and reflected symmetry; a simulation study indicates the good sampling properties of these tests. Finally, a framework for testing general symmetry hypotheses is introduced.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.328
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.328
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.011
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymmetrySame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207