On the use of priors in goodness‐of‐fit tests
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
Abstract Priors are introduced into goodness‐of‐fit tests, both for unknown parameters in the tested distribution and on the alternative density. Neyman–Pearson theory leads to the test with the highest expected power. To make the test practical, we seek priors that make it likely a priori that the power will be larger than the level of the test but not too close to one. As a result, priors are sample size dependent. We explore this procedure in particular for priors that are defined via a Gaussian process approximation for the logarithm of the alternative density. In the case of testing for the uniform distribution, we show that the optimal test is of the U ‐statistic type and establish limiting distributions for the optimal test statistic, both under the null hypothesis and averaged over the alternative hypotheses. The optimal test statistic is shown to be of the Cramér–von Mises type for specific choices of the Gaussian process involved. The methodology when parameters in the tested distribution are unknown is discussed and illustrated in the case of testing for the von Mises distribution. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 47: 560–579; 2019 © 2019 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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