A test of significance for Benford’s law based on the Chebyshev distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show, by means of a numerical simulation, that the asymptotic (n ≥ 100) cumulative distribution function of the Chebyshev distance statistic is well approximated by a log-normal function with parameters μ = −0.6183 and σ = 0.3561 in the null hypothesis that Benford’s law holds. The deviations of the cumulative function observed in Monte Carlo simulations from the empirical one are below 0.5%. This makes the statistical test based on the Chebyshev statistic accurate at a level of 1% when testing Benford’s law for moderately large and large numbers of data points. Test values of the Chebyshev distance as a function of the sample size are also estimated empirically by performing a Monte Carlo simulation in the case of low n (10 ≤ n ≤ 99). The efficacy and power of the goodness-of-fit test based on the Chebyshev estimator are analyzed and compared with those based on the Pearson χ2 and Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics. Finally, an application of the Chebyshev test to the annual deaths counts by country is discussed. Journal of Statistical Research 2024, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 259-277
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 | 0.024 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".