Fractile Graphical Analysis in Finance: A New Perspective with Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fractile Graphical Analysis (FGA) was proposed by Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis in 1961 as a method for comparing two distributions at two different points (of time or space) controlling for the rank of a covariate through fractile groups. We use bootstrap techniques to formalize the heuristic method used by Mahalanobis for approximating the standard error of the dependent variable using fractile graphs from two independently selected “interpenetrating network of subsamples.” We highlight the potential and revisit this underutilized technique of FGA with a historical perspective. We explore a new non-parametric regression method called Fractile Regression where we condition on the ranks of the covariate and compare it with existing regression techniques. We apply this method to compare mutual fund inflow distributions after conditioning on ranks or fractiles of pre-tax and post-tax returns and compare distributions of private and public equity returns after controlling for fractiles of assets under management size using the two sample smooth test.
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 | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".