Robust nonparametric hypothesis tests for differences in the covariance structure of functional data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We develop a group of robust, nonparametric hypothesis tests that detect differences between the covariance operators of several populations of functional data. These tests, called functional Kruskal–Wallis tests for covariance, or FKWC tests, are based on functional data depth ranks. FKWC tests work well even when the data are heavy‐tailed, which is shown both in simulation and theory. FKWC tests offer several other benefits: they have a simple asymptotic distribution under the null hypothesis, they are computationally cheap, and they possess transformation‐invariance properties. We show that under general alternative hypotheses, these tests are consistent under mild, nonparametric assumptions. As a result, we introduce a new functional depth function called ‐root depth that works well for the purposes of detecting differences in magnitude between covariance kernels. We present an analysis of the FKWC test based on ‐root depth under local alternatives. Through simulations, when the true covariance kernels have an infinite number of positive eigenvalues, we show that these tests have higher power than their competitors while maintaining their nominal size. We also provide a method for computing sample size and performing multiple comparisons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it