A test of singularity for distribution functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many non- and semi- parametric estimators have asymptotic properties that have been established under conditions that exclude the possibility of singular parts in the distribution. It is thus important to be able to test for absence of singularities. Methods of testing that focus on specific singularities do exist, but there are few generally applicable approaches. A general test based on kernel density estimation was proposed by Frigyesi and Hössjer (1998), but this statistic can diverge for some absolutely continuous distributions. Here we use a result in Zinde-Walsh (2008) to characterize distributions with varying degrees of smoothness, via functionals that reveal the behavior of the bias of the kernel density estimator. The statistics proposed here have well defined asymptotic distributions that are asymptotically pivotal in some class of distributions (e.g. for continuous density) and diverge for distributions in an alternative class, at a rate that can be explicitly evaluated and controlled.
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 | 0.024 | 0.267 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".