TESTING FOR HOMOGENEITY IN MIXTURE MODELS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical models of unobserved heterogeneity are typically formalized as mixtures of simple parametric models and interest naturally focuses on testing for homogeneity versus general mixture alternatives. Many tests of this type can be interpreted asC(α) tests, as in Neyman (1959), and shown to be locally asymptotically optimal. TheseC(α) tests will be contrasted with a new approach to likelihood ratio testing for general mixture models. The latter tests are based on estimation of general nonparametric mixing distribution with the Kiefer and Wolfowitz (1956) maximum likelihood estimator. Recent developments in convex optimization have dramatically improved upon earlier EM methods for computation of these estimators, and recent results on the large sample behavior of likelihood ratios involving such estimators yield a tractable form of asymptotic inference. Improvement in computation efficiency also facilitates the use of a bootstrap method to determine critical values that are shown to work better than the asymptotic critical values in finite samples. Consistency of the bootstrap procedure is also formally established. We compare performance of the two approaches identifying circumstances in which each is preferred.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.263 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".