A comprehensive empirical power comparison of univariate goodness-of-fit tests for the Laplace distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present the results from an empirical power comparison of 40 goodness-of-fit tests for the univariate Laplace distribution, carried out using Monte Carlo simulations with sample sizes n = 20, 50, 100, 200, significance levels α=0.01,0.05,0.10, and 400 alternatives consisting of asymmetric and symmetric light/heavy-tailed distributions taken as special cases from 11 models. In addition to the unmatched scope of our study, an interesting contribution is the proposal of an innovative design for the selection of alternatives. The 400 alternatives consist of 20 specific cases of 20 submodels drawn from the main 11 models. For each submodel, the 20 specific cases corresponded to parameter values chosen to cover the full power range. An analysis of the results leads to a recommendation of the best tests for five different groupings of the alternative distributions. A real-data example is also presented, where an appropriate test for the goodness-of-fit of the univariate Laplace distribution is applied to weekly log-returns of Amazon stock over a recent 4-year period.
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 | 0.076 | 0.332 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".