A hyperbolic divergence based nonparametric test for two‐sample multivariate distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two‐sample hypothesis testing, as a fundamental problem in statistical inference, seeks to detect the difference between two probability measures and has numerous real‐world applications. Current test procedures for multivariate two‐sample problems typically rely on angles and lengths in a Euclidean space, or lengths in a unit hypersphere after representing data with the spherical model. This article introduces a hyperbolic divergence based on hyperbolic lengths in hyperbolic geometry, as well as a subsequent nonparametric approach to testing the multivariate two‐sample problem. We investigate the properties of our test procedure and discover that our hyperbolic divergence statistic is strongly consistent and consistent against all other alternatives; we also demonstrate that its limit distribution is an infinite mixture of distributions under the null hypothesis and a normal distribution under the alternative hypothesis. To calculate the ‐value, we employ the permutation method. Furthermore, in numerical studies, we compare our method with several nonparametric procedures under various distributional assumptions and alternatives. We discover that our test procedure has some advantages when the distributions' complex correlation structures differ. Finally, we examine one real data set to show how our method can be used to test two‐sample heterogeneity.
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 | 0.026 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".