MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125695171

Information-Theoretic Distribution Test with Application to Normality

2006· preprint· en· W3125695171 on OpenAlexaff
Thanasis Stengos, Ximing Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2006
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsScore testLagrange multiplierAsymptotic distributionPrinciple of maximum entropyWald testFisher informationExponential familyEstimatorApplied mathematicsNormalityStatisticsNormality testStatistical hypothesis testingLikelihood principleMaximum entropy probability distributionEconometricsLikelihood functionMathematical optimizationMaximum likelihoodQuasi-maximum likelihood
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive general distribution tests based on the method of Maximum Entropy density. The proposed tests are derived from maximizing the differential entropy subject to moment constraints. By exploiting the equivalence between the Maximum Entropy and Maximum Likelihood estimates of the general exponential family, we can use the conventional Likelihood Ratio, Wald and Lagrange Multiplier testing principles in the maximum entropy framework. In particular, we use the Lagrange Multiplier method to derive tests for normality and their asymptotic properties. Monte Carlo evidence suggests that the proposed tests have desirable small sample properties and often outperform commonly used tests such as the Jarque-Bera test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov-Lillie test for normality. We show that the proposed tests can be extended to tests based on regression residuals and non-iid data in a straightforward manner. We apply the proposed tests to the residuals from a stochastic production frontier model and reject the normality hypothesis.

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)0.096
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
Metaresearch0.0110.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207