Empirical phi-divergence test statistics for testing simple and composite null hypotheses
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
The main purpose of this paper is to introduce first a new family of empirical test statistics for testing a simple null hypothesis when the vector of parameters of interest are defined through a specific set of unbiased estimating functions. This family of test statistics is based on a distance between two probability vectors, with the first probability vector obtained by maximizing the empirical likelihood on the vector of parameters, and the second vector defined from the fixed vector of parameters under the simple null hypothesis. The distance considered for this purpose is the phi-divergence measure. The asymptotic distribution is then derived for this family of test statistics. The proposed methodology is illustrated through the well-known data of Newcomb's measurements on the passage time for light. A simulation study is carried out to compare its performance with that of the empirical likelihood ratio test when confidence intervals are constructed based on the respective statistics for small sample sizes. The results suggest that the "empirical modified likelihood ratio test statistic" provides a competitive alternative to the empirical likelihood ratio test statistic, and is also more robust than the empirical likelihood ratio test statistic in the presence of contamination in the data. Finally, we propose empirical phi-divergence test statistics for testing a composite null hypothesis and present some asymptotic as well as simulation results for evaluating the performance of these test procedures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it