Are information criteria good enough to choose the right number of regimes in hidden Markov models?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it