Quantile-based information generating functions and their properties and uses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Information generating functions (IGFs) have been of great interest to researchers due to their ability to generate various information measures. The IGF of an absolutely continuous random variable (see Golomb, S. (1966). The information generating function of a probability distribution. IEEE Transactions in Information Theory, 12(1), 75–77) depends on its density function. But, there are several models with intractable cumulative distribution functions, but do have explicit quantile functions. For this reason, in this work, we propose quantile version of the IGF, and then explore some of its properties. Effect of increasing transformations on it is then studied. Bounds are also obtained. The proposed generating function is studied especially for escort and generalized escort distributions. Some connections between the quantile-based IGF (Q-IGF) order and well-known stochastic orders are established. Finally, the proposed Q-IGF is extended for residual and past lifetimes as well. Several examples are presented through out to illustrate the theoretical results established here. An inferential application of the proposed methodology is also discussed
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 | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".