MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415283929 · doi:10.3390/stats8040097

Goodness-of-Fit Tests via Entropy-Based Density Estimation Techniques

2025· article· en· W4415283929 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStats · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantileEntropy (arrow of time)Statistical hypothesis testingRange (aeronautics)InferenceStatistical inferenceDensity estimationEmpirical likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Goodness-of-fit testing remains a fundamental problem in statistical inference with broad practical importance. In this paper, we introduce two new goodness-of-fit tests grounded in entropy-based density estimation techniques. The first is a boundary-corrected empirical likelihood ratio test, which refines the classic approach by addressing bias near the support boundaries, though, in practice, it yields results very similar to the uncorrected version. The second is a novel test built on Correa’s local linear entropy estimator, leveraging quantile regression to improve density estimation accuracy. We establish the theoretical properties of both test statistics and demonstrate their practical effectiveness through extensive simulation studies and real-data applications. The results show that the proposed methods deliver strong power and flexibility in assessing model adequacy in a wide range of settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.339 · 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