MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038487729 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11670

Testing normality in any dimension by Fourier methods in a multivariate Stein equation

2021· preprint· en· W3038487729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruno Ebner, Norbert Henze, David Strieder

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsAsymptotic distributionTest statisticStatisticsMultivariate statisticsMultivariate normal distributionEstimatorConfidence intervalApplied mathematicsStatistical hypothesis testing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a novel class of affine‐invariant and consistent tests for multivariate normality. The tests are based on a characterization of the standard d ‐variate normal distribution by way of the unique solution of an initial value problem connected to a partial differential equation, which is motivated by a multivariate Stein equation. The test criterion is a suitably weighted L 2 ‐statistic. We derive the limit distribution of the test statistic under the null hypothesis as well as under contiguous and fixed alternatives to normality. A consistent estimator of the limiting variance under fixed alternatives, as well as an asymptotic confidence interval of the distance of an underlying alternative with respect to the multivariate normal law, is derived. In simulation studies, we show that the tests are strong in comparison with prominent competitors and that the empirical coverage rate of the asymptotic confidence interval converges to the nominal level. We present a real data example and also outline topics for further research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207