MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122731439

General Saddlepoint Approximations: Application to the Anderson-Darling Test Statistic

2007· preprint· en· W3122731439 on OpenAlex
Qian Chen, David E. A. Giles

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2007
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsTest statisticStatisticApproximations of πLimit (mathematics)Distribution (mathematics)Normal distributionApplied mathematicsEdgeworth seriesApproximation errorCentral limit theoremStatisticsMathematical analysisStatistical hypothesis testing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the relative merits of various saddlepoint approximations for the c.d.f. of a statistic with a possibly non-normal limit distribution. In addition to the usual Lugannani-Rice approximation we also consider approximations based on higher-order expansions, including the case where the base distribution for the approximation is taken to be non-normal. This extends earlier work by Wood et al. (1993). These approximations are applied to the distribution of the Anderson-Darling test statistic. While these generalizations perform well in the middle of the distribution’s support, a conventional normal-based Lugannani-Rice approximation (Giles, 2001) is superior for conventional critical regions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.327 · 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