Testing Relevant Hypotheses in Functional Time Series via Self-Normalization
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
Summary We develop methodology for testing relevant hypotheses about functional time series in a tuning-free way. Instead of testing for exact equality, e.g. for the equality of two mean functions from two independent time series, we propose to test the null hypothesis of no relevant deviation. In the two-sample problem this means that an L2-distance between the two mean functions is smaller than a prespecified threshold. For such hypotheses self-normalization, which was introduced in 2010 by Shao, and Shao and Zhang and is commonly used to avoid the estimation of nuisance parameters, is not directly applicable. We develop new self-normalized procedures for testing relevant hypotheses in the one-sample, two-sample and change point problem and investigate their asymptotic properties. Finite sample properties of the tests proposed are illustrated by means of a simulation study and data examples. Our main focus is on functional time series, but extensions to other settings are also briefly discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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