A new distribution‐free <i>k</i>‐sample test: Analysis of kernel density functionals
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 A novel distribution‐free k ‐sample test of differences in location shifts based on the analysis of kernel density functional estimation is introduced and studied. The proposed test parallels one‐way analysis of variance and the Kruskal–Wallis (KW) test aiming at testing locations of unknown distributions. In contrast to the rank (score)‐transformed non‐parametric approach, such as the KW test, the proposed F ‐test uses the measurement responses along with well‐known kernel density estimation (KDE) to estimate the locations and construct the test statistic. A practical optimal bandwidth selection procedure is also provided. Our simulation studies and real data example indicate that the proposed analysis of kernel density functional estimate (ANDFE) test is superior to existing competitors for fat‐tailed or heavy‐tailed distributions when the k groups differ mainly in location rather than shape, especially with unbalanced data. ANDFE is also highly recommended when it is unclear whether test groups differ mainly in shape or location. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 48: 167–186; 2020 © 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 | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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