MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405419030 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.11808

Distance Correlation in Multiple Biased Sampling Models

2024· preprint· en· W4405419030 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ke Yan, Hok Kan Ling, Yanglei Song

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCorrelationDistance samplingSampling (signal processing)StatisticsMathematicsStatistical physicsComputer sciencePhysicsGeometryBiologyComputer visionAbundance (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testing the independence between random vectors is a fundamental problem in statistics. Distance correlation, a recently popular dependence measure, is universally consistent for testing independence against all distributions with finite moments. However, when data are subject to selection bias or collected from multiple sources or schemes, spurious dependence may arise. This creates a need for methods that can effectively utilize data from different sources and correct these biases. In this paper, we study the estimation of distance covariance and distance correlation under multiple biased sampling models, which provide a natural framework for addressing these issues. Theoretical properties, including the strong consistency and asymptotic null distributions of the distance covariance and correlation estimators, and the rate at which the test statistic diverges under sequences of alternatives approaching the null, are established. A weighted permutation procedure is proposed to determine the critical value of the independence test. Simulation studies demonstrate that our approach improves both the estimation of distance correlation and the power of the test.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.132
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.132
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.395
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.118 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207