Goodness-of-fit tests for Laplace, Gaussian and exponential power distributions based on<i>λ</i>-th power skewness and kurtosis
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
Temperature data, like many other measurements in quantitative fields, are usually modelled using a normal distribution. However, some distributions can offer a better fit while avoiding underestimation of tail event probabilities. To this point, we extend Pearson's notions of skewness and kurtosis to build a powerful family of goodness-of-fit tests based on Rao's score for the exponential power distribution EPDλ(μ,σ), including tests for normality and Laplacity when λ is set to 1 or 2. We find the asymptotic distribution of our test statistic, which is the sum of the squares of two Z-scores, under the null and under local alternatives. We also develop an innovative regression strategy to obtain Z-scores that are nearly independent and distributed as standard Gaussians, resulting in a χ22 distribution valid for any sample size (up to very high precision for n≥20). The case λ=1 leads to a powerful test of fit for the Laplace(μ,σ) distribution, whose empirical power is superior to all 39 competitors in the literature, over a wide range of 400 alternatives. Theoretical proofs in this case are particularly challenging and substantial. We applied our tests to three temperature datasets. The new tests are implemented in the R package PoweR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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