<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Statistics |</title><link>https://AaronScherf.github.io/tags/statistics/</link><atom:link href="https://AaronScherf.github.io/tags/statistics/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><description>Statistics</description><generator>HugoBlox Kit (https://hugoblox.com)</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Novel Omnibus Normality Test</title><link>https://AaronScherf.github.io/projects/math_thesis/</link><pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://AaronScherf.github.io/projects/math_thesis/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;My mathematics thesis explored a way to test whether data depart from a bell-shaped, or normal, distribution. It transforms an ordered sample into a pattern of departures from what normal data would produce, then looks for structure beyond random fluctuation. The aim was to detect different kinds of departure through one flexible test.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the small-sample simulations, the method performed similarly to the established Shapiro–Wilk test for two families of distributions, but fell behind for two others. The result was a proof of concept with room to investigate the construction further. It did not establish a generally stronger normality test.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id="turning-a-sample-into-a-pattern"&gt;Turning a sample into a pattern&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An ordered sample contains information about where it departs from the expected shape. After the transformation, normal samples fluctuate around zero. Other distributions can produce a systematic bend or a different pattern of departures. Keeping their direction as well as their size is the useful part of the approach.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I fitted those departures with a penalized generalized least squares model, or PGLS. The penalty discourages the model from simply tracing every noisy point, much as smoothing a jagged line can reveal its broader shape. The model also accounts for how the transformed observations vary together. Its fitted coefficients supply a measure of departure, and simulations of normal samples establish a rejection threshold.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id="what-the-simulations-showed"&gt;What the simulations showed&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The comparison used samples of 20 observations and 10,000 simulations per tested setting. &lt;strong&gt;Power&lt;/strong&gt; is the proportion of non-normal samples a test correctly identifies under those conditions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;thead&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;th&gt;Simulated distribution&lt;/th&gt;
&lt;th&gt;Proposed test compared with Shapiro–Wilk&lt;/th&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;t-distribution&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Similar, generally slightly lower power&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Generalized Pareto&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Similar patterns across the tested shape settings&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Gamma&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Lower power, by about 10–20 percentage points in the reported comparisons&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Chi-square&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;A larger gap, favoring Shapiro–Wilk over most tested settings&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As distributions became harder to distinguish from normal, detection became difficult for both methods. The
describe these conditions and the remaining choices: how strongly to smooth, which patterns to fit, and how to construct the final statistic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This was my master&amp;rsquo;s thesis at Indiana State University, advised by Dr. Mark Inlow. The
includes the report and R implementation.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>