Are information criteria good enough to choose the right number of regimes in hidden Markov models?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting the number of regimes in Hidden Markov models is an important problem. Many criteria are used to do so, such as Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), integrated completed likelihood (ICL), deviance information criterion (DIC), and Watanabe-Akaike information criterion (WAIC), to name a few. In this article, we introduced goodness-of-fit tests for general Hidden Markov models with covariates, where the distribution of the observations is arbitrary, i.e. continuous, discrete, or a mixture of both. A selection procedure is proposed based on this goodness-of-fit test. The main aim of this article is to compare the classical information criterion with the new criterion when the outcome is either continuous, discrete or zero-inflated. Numerical experiments assess the finite sample performance of the goodness-of-fit tests, and comparisons between the different criteria are made.
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 | 0.041 | 0.219 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".