Testing for independence in arbitrary distributions
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 Statistics are proposed for testing the hypothesis that arbitrary random variables are mutually independent. The tests are consistent and well behaved for any marginal distributions; they can be used, for example, for contingency tables which are sparse or whose dimension depends on the sample size, as well as for mixed data. No regularity conditions, data jittering, or binning mechanisms are required. The statistics are rank-based functionals of Cramér–von Mises type whose asymptotic behaviour derives from the empirical multilinear copula process. Approximate $p$-values are computed using a wild bootstrap. The procedures are simple to implement and computationally efficient, and maintain their level well in moderate to large samples. Simulations suggest that the tests are robust with respect to the number of ties in the data, can easily detect a broad range of alternatives, and outperform existing procedures in many settings. Additional insight into their performance is provided through asymptotic local power calculations under contiguous alternatives. The procedures are illustrated on traumatic brain injury 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it