Correcting for Non-Sum to 1 Estimated Probabilities in Applications of Discrete Probability Models to Count Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we examine some often ignored or assumed problems relating with fitting probability models to count data either exhibiting over, equi, or under dispersion. Of particular concern are last category truncated data, where most often, expected values in this last category are collapsed together so that the sum of the expected values sum to the sample size in the data. That is, so that $\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{k} \hat{m}_i=n$, the sample size. We shall for illustrative purposes in this paper, consider the following distributions: the negative binomial (NB), the Inverse trinomial (IT), the hyper-Poisson (HP), the Quasi-negative binomial (QNBD), the extended com-Poisson distribution (ECOMP) as well as the negative binomial-exponential distribution (NBGE).Though, we have restricted our discussion to these six distributions, other distributions may also be employed but the patterns are always the same, that is, the sum of the estimated probabilities does not equal 1.00 and consequently, the sum of the expected values is always less or equal (Poisson case only) the sample size in the observed data. We propose a common procedure to rectify this problem for both right truncated or non-truncated frequency count data exhibiting either excess zeros or regular frequency data.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".