Goodness‐of‐fit testing based on a weighted bootstrap: A fast large‐sample alternative to the parametric bootstrap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The process comparing the empirical cumulative distribution function of the sample with a parametric estimate of the cumulative distribution function is known as the empirical process with estimated parameters and has been extensively employed in the literature for goodness‐of‐fit testing. The simplest way to carry out such goodness‐of‐fit tests, especially in a multivariate setting, is to use a parametric bootstrap. Although very easy to implement, the parametric bootstrap can become very computationally expensive as the sample size, the number of parameters, or the dimension of the data increase. An alternative resampling technique based on a fast weighted bootstrap is proposed in this paper, and is studied both theoretically and empirically. The outcome of this work is a generic and computationally efficient multiplier goodness‐of‐fit procedure that can be used as a large‐sample alternative to the parametric bootstrap. In order to approximately determine how large the sample size needs to be for the parametric and weighted bootstraps to have roughly equivalent powers, extensive Monte Carlo experiments are carried out in dimension one, two and three, and for models containing up to nine parameters. The computational gains resulting from the use of the proposed multiplier goodness‐of‐fit procedure are illustrated on trivariate financial data. A by‐product of this work is a fast large‐sample goodness‐of‐fit procedure for the bivariate and trivariate t distribution whose degrees of freedom are fixed. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 40: 480–500; 2012 © 2012 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.
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 | 0.026 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".