Researcher profile

William Perkins

William Perkins contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
6topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2013arXiv

Significance testing without truth

A popular approach to significance testing proposes to decide whether the given hypothesized statistical model is likely to be true (or false). Statistical decision theory provides a basis for this approach by requiring every significance test to make a decision about the truth of the hypothesis/model under consideration. Unfortunately, many interesting and useful models are obviously false (that is, not exactly true) even before considering any data. Fortunately, in practice a significance test need only gauge the consistency (or inconsistency) of the observed data with the assumed hypothesis/model -- without enquiring as to whether the assumption is likely to be true (or false), or whether some alternative is likely to be true (or false). In this practical formulation, a significance test rejects a hypothesis/model only if the observed data is highly improbable when calculating the probability while assuming the hypothesis being tested; the significance test only gauges whether the observed data likely invalidates the assumed hypothesis, and cannot decide that the assumption -- however unmistakably false -- is likely to be false a priori, without any data.

preprint2012arXiv

Computing the asymptotic power of a Euclidean-distance test for goodness-of-fit

A natural (yet unconventional) test for goodness-of-fit measures the discrepancy between the model and empirical distributions via their Euclidean distance (or, equivalently, via its square). The present paper characterizes the statistical power of such a test against a family of alternative distributions, in the limit that the number of observations is large, with every alternative departing from the model in the same direction. Specifically, the paper provides an efficient numerical method for evaluating the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of the square of the Euclidean distance between the model and empirical distributions under the alternatives, in the limit that the number of observations is large. The paper illustrates the scheme by plotting the asymptotic power (as a function of the significance level) for several examples.

preprint2011arXiv

Chi-square and classical exact tests often wildly misreport significance; the remedy lies in computers

If a discrete probability distribution in a model being tested for goodness-of-fit is not close to uniform, then forming the Pearson chi-square statistic can involve division by nearly zero. This often leads to serious trouble in practice -- even in the absence of round-off errors -- as the present article illustrates via numerous examples. Fortunately, with the now widespread availability of computers, avoiding all the trouble is simple and easy: without the problematic division by nearly zero, the actual values taken by goodness-of-fit statistics are not humanly interpretable, but black-box computer programs can rapidly calculate their precise significance.

preprint2011arXiv

Computing the confidence levels for a root-mean-square test of goodness-of-fit

The classic chi-squared statistic for testing goodness-of-fit has long been a cornerstone of modern statistical practice. The statistic consists of a sum in which each summand involves division by the probability associated with the corresponding bin in the distribution being tested for goodness-of-fit. Typically this division should precipitate rebinning to uniformize the probabilities associated with the bins, in order to make the test reasonably powerful. With the now widespread availability of computers, there is no longer any need for this. The present paper provides efficient black-box algorithms for calculating the asymptotic confidence levels of a variant on the classic chi-squared test which omits the problematic division. In many circumstances, it is also feasible to compute the exact confidence levels via Monte Carlo simulation.

preprint2011arXiv

Computing the confidence levels for a root-mean-square test of goodness-of-fit, II

This paper extends our earlier article, "Computing the confidence levels for a root-mean-square test of goodness-of-fit;" unlike in the earlier article, the models in the present paper involve parameter estimation -- both the null and alternative hypotheses in the associated tests are composite. We provide efficient black-box algorithms for calculating the asymptotic confidence levels of a variant on the classic chi-squared test. In some circumstances, it is also feasible to compute the exact confidence levels via Monte Carlo simulation.