MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398183818 · doi:10.1080/10618600.2024.2358156

Nonparametric High-Dimensional Multi-Sample Tests based on Graph Theory

2024· article· en· W4398183818 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaoping Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNonparametric statisticsComputer scienceSample (material)MathematicsEconometricsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-dimensional data pose unique challenges for data processing in an era of ever-increasing amounts of data availability. Graph theory can provide a structure of high-dimensional data. We introduce two key properties desirable for graphs in testing homogeneity. Roughly speaking, these properties may be described as: unboundedness of edge counts under the same distribution and boundedness of edge counts under different distributions. It turns out that the minimum spanning tree violates these properties but the shortest Hamiltonian path posses them. Based on the shortest Hamiltonian path, we propose two combinations of edge counts in multiple samples to test for homogeneity. We give the permutation null distributions of proposed statistics when sample sizes go to infinity. The power is analyzed by assuming both sample sizes and dimensionality tend to infinity. Simulations show that our new tests behave very well overall in comparison with various competitors. Real data analysis of tumors and images further convince the value of our proposed tests. Software implementing the test is available in the R package GRelevance. Supplemental materials for this article are available online.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational and Graphical StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207