MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249826780 · doi:10.1111/1467-9469.00223

Likelihood Asymptotics

2001· article· en· W4249826780 on OpenAlexaff
Ib M. Skovgaard

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Statistics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsApplied mathematicsLaplace's methodGeneralizationParametric statisticsStatisticLikelihood-ratio testAsymptotic analysisStatistical hypothesis testingTest statisticLikelihood principleComputationInferenceMarginal likelihoodLaplace transformLikelihood functionEstimation theoryMaximum likelihoodStatisticsAlgorithmMathematical analysisComputer scienceQuasi-maximum likelihoodArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper gives an overview of modern likelihood asymptotics with emphasis on results and applicability. Only parametric inference in well‐behaved models is considered and the theory discussed leads to highly accurate asymptotic tests for general smooth hypotheses. The tests are refinements of the usual asymptotic likelihood ratio tests, and for one‐dimensional hypotheses the test statistic is known as r*, introduced by Barndorff‐Nielsen. Examples illustrate the applicability and accuracy as well as the complexity of the required computations. Modern likelihood asymptotics has developed by merging two lines of research: asymptotic ancillarity is the basis of the statistical development, and saddlepoint approximations or Laplace‐type approximations have simultaneously developed as the technical foundation. The main results and techniques of these two lines will be reviewed, and a generalization to multi‐dimensional tests is developed. In the final part of the paper further problems and ideas are presented. Among these are linear models with non‐normal error, non‐parametric linear models obtained by estimation of the residual density in combination with the present results, and the generalization of the results to restricted maximum likelihood and similar structured models.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.010

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations106
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of StatisticsSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207