Skip to content
#software testing Open access

The trace-gamma distribution: a three-cumulant calibrated reference for quadratic-form tests, with Welch's F and Pearson's χ² as special cases (mdist)— reproducibility deposit

Aug 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Abstract

The trace-gamma distribution: a three-cumulant calibrated reference for quadratic-form tests, with Welch's F and Pearson's χ² as special cases William J. Dwyer, MD, MPH, FAAP — Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Massachusetts Lowell. ORCID 0009-0004-0855-7222. Concept DOI (always resolves to the latest version): 10.5281/zenodo.22060095. Published v1.0.13:10.5281/zenodo.22143061. What this is The reproducibility deposit for the trace-gamma paper. Many everyday tests are quadratic forms in approximately-normal estimates — Welch's heteroscedastic F, Pearson's χ² of independence, score and Wald statistics — and their exact null is a generalized chi-square (a weighted mix of χ²'s) that software almost always replaces with a one- or two-moment approximation. Those approximations miscalibrate exactly where it matters: few groups, unequal variances, sparse or skewed data. The paper introduces the trace-gamma distribution, a three-cumulant calibrated reference built from the quadratic form's own mean, variance, and third cumulant via the Lancaster cumulant-trace identity, and shows that Welch's F and Pearson's χ² fall out as special cases. It matches the exact Imhof (1961) inversion across a wide design grid, carries an estimable non-Gaussian cumulant correction, and — deployed as a test reference — is a deflation of the naive two-moment call (its rejection region is a strict subset, so a significant result can only be withdrawn, never manufactured; no reverse flip is possible). What the deposit contains Manuscript (author + anonymized; built .docx/.pdf), the novelty / prior-art companion, and the long-form derivations companion (D1–D8, proof-complete: the generalized-chi-square null, the Lancaster cumulant-trace identity, the trace-gamma parameterization, and the arguments behind Propositions 1–6). Reproducibility apparatus — the distribution object mseries_qgamma.py (TraceGamma, constructors from cumulants), the four cross-checks validate_qgamma.py, the base experiments qgamma_experiments.py (V1–V3), the estimable cumulant correction, the exact Imhof-inversion cross-check qgamma_imhof.py, the wider design grid (group size × imbalance × input shape), and the deployed stress grid — each with its locked CSV. Every reported number regenerates from these deterministically-seeded scripts. Figures — the accuracy panels, the cumulant-correction figure, the design-grid and stress-grid figures, and the Imhof cross-check. Interactive demonstrator honest_tracegamma.html — computes the two-cumulant-vs-trace-gamma verdict flip and its population incidence in the browser, reproduces the deposited Python, and carries the house flip-interpretation standard (deflation marker, "how to read a flip" beat, incidence panel, assertNoReverse). Deep-dive record and the submission apparatus. All evaluation is simulation-based with an exact-inversion cross-check. Code is released under the MIT License; text, figures, and data under CC BY 4.0. How to cite Please cite this deposit if you use the package or the method. Citing the concept DOI references the work in general and always resolves to the latest version; cite a specific version DOI to point at an exact snapshot. Dwyer, W. J. (2026). The trace-gamma distribution: a three-cumulant calibrated reference for quadratic-form tests — reproducibility deposit [Software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22060095 BibTeX: bibtex @software{dwyer_tracegamma_2026, author = {Dwyer, William J.}, title = {The trace-gamma distribution: a three-cumulant calibrated reference for quadratic-form tests --- reproducibility deposit}, year = {2026}, publisher = {Zenodo}, doi = {10.5281/zenodo.22060095}, url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22060095}, orcid = {0009-0004-0855-7222} } The DOI above is the concept DOI (resolves to the latest version); to cite a specific release use that version's DOI in place of it (e.g. 10.5281/zenodo.22143061 for v1.0.13). When the accompanying journal article appears, please cite it as the primary reference for the method and this deposit as the reproducibility archive. Version history v1.0.14 — ✅ 10.5281/zenodo.22187379 (2026-08-31) staged (pending upload): rendering-only refresh — the manuscript and Derivations Companion docx/PDF rebuilt through the current math-typography builder so nested-paren radicals draw as true Office-math radicals; the deposit now also carries the current shared house tooling (the bundled mseries_deposit.py includes the require_all deposit guard). No number, figure, table, or claim changed; the 71 in-text cross-reference links are intact. New version on concept 10.5281/zenodo.22060095 (tracegamma_reproducibility_v1.0.14.zip, md5 6f6a0e5c1e29d6cd3fa34008458666f0, 9,937,855 B, 59 files). v1.0.13 — ✅ 10.5281/zenodo.22143061 (2026-08-28). v1.0.12 — ✅ 10.5281/zenodo.22142142 (2026-08-28): two companion documents added — the novelty/prior-art review and the full-detail D1–D8 derivations ladder; §6 now points to the derivations companion; body unchanged. v1.0.11 — ✅ 10.5281/zenodo.22132594 (2026-08-27): cover letter brought to the house standard; first fully deterministic (byte-reproducible) deposit. v1.0.10 — ✅ 10.5281/zenodo.22125099 (2026-08-27): restored the in-text cross-reference hyperlinks in the Word/PDF. v1.0.0 — first deposit (10.5281/zenodo.22060096; concept 10.5281/zenodo.22060095): the trace-gamma distribution object, the Imhof cross-check, the design grid, and the honest_tracegamma.html demonstrator. Provenance: every number traces to a named, deterministically-seeded script and is cross-checked against the exact Imhof (1961) inversion; the demonstrator reproduces the deposited Python. Related records: the T_root methodology 10.5281/zenodo.21522471; the ANOVA sibling m01A 10.5281/zenodo.21908169.

View source

Similar papers

#computer vision Review Sep 2017

Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis

Agile - denoting "the quality of being agile, readiness for motion, nimbleness, activity, dexterity in motion" - software development methods are attempting to offer an answer to the eager business community asking for lighter weight along with faster and nimbler software development processes. This is especially the case with the rapidly growing and volatile Internet software industry as well as for the emerging mobile application environment. The new agile methods have evoked substantial amount of literature and debates. However, academic research on the subject is still scarce, as most of existing publications are written by practitioners or consultants. The aim of this publication is to begin filling this gap by systematically reviewing the existing literature on agile software development methodologies. This publication has three purposes. First, it proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches. Second, it analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion. Third, it compares these methods and highlights their similarities and differences. Based on this analysis, future research needs are identified and discussed.

P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al. · 728 citations · ⚡54
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

Context: Software startups are newly created companies with no operating history and fast in producing cutting-edge technologies. These companies develop software under highly uncertain conditions, tackling fast-growing markets under severe lack of resources. Therefore, software startups present a unique combination of characteristics which pose several challenges to software development activities. Objective: This study aims to structure and analyze the literature on software development in startup companies, determining thereby the potential for technology transfer and identifying software development work practices reported by practitioners and researchers. Method: We conducted a systematic mapping study, developing a classification schema, ranking the selected primary studies according their rigor and relevance, and analyzing reported software development work practices in startups. Results: A total of 43 primary studies were identified and mapped, synthesizing the available evidence on software development in startups. Only 16 studies are entirely dedicated to software development in startups, of which 10 result in a weak contribution (advice and implications (6); lesson learned (3); tool (1)). Nineteen studies focus on managerial and organizational factors. Moreover, only 9 studies exhibit high scientific rigor and relevance. From the reviewed primary studies, 213 software engineering work practices were extracted, categorized and analyzed. Conclusion: This mapping study provides the first systematic exploration of the state-of-art on software startup research. The existing body of knowledge is limited to a few high quality studies. Furthermore, the results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54
#computer vision Open access Jul 2017

What happens when software developers are (un)happy

The growing literature on affect among software developers mostly reports on the linkage between happiness, software quality, and developer productivity. Understanding happiness and unhappiness in all its components -- positive and negative emotions and moods -- is an attractive and important endeavor. Scholars in industrial and organizational psychology have suggested that understanding happiness and unhappiness could lead to cost-effective ways of enhancing working conditions, job performance, and to limiting the occurrence of psychological disorders. Our comprehension of the consequences of (un)happiness among developers is still too shallow, being mainly expressed in terms of development productivity and software quality. In this paper, we study what happens when developers are happy and unhappy while developing software. Qualitative data analysis of responses given by 317 questionnaire participants identified 42 consequences of unhappiness and 32 of happiness. We found consequences of happiness and unhappiness that are beneficial and detrimental for developers' mental well-being, the software development process, and the produced artifacts. Our classification scheme, available as open data enables new happiness research opportunities of cause-effect type, and it can act as a guideline for practitioners for identifying damaging effects of unhappiness and for fostering happiness on the job.

D. Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang et al. · 236 citations · ⚡13
#computer vision Open access Oct 2004

Mobile-D: an agile approach for mobile application development

Mobile phones have been closed environments until recent years. The change brought by open platform technologies such as the Symbian operating system and Java technologies has opened up a significant business opportunity for anyone to develop application software such as games for mobile terminals. However, developing mobile applications is currently a challenging task due to the specific demands and technical constraints of mobile development. Furthermore, at the moment very little is known about the suitability of the different development processes for mobile application development. Due to these issues, we have developed an agile development approach called Mobile-D. The Mobile-D approach is briefly outlined here and the experiences gained from four case studies are discussed.

P. Abrahamsson, Antti Hanhineva, H. Hulkko et al. · 225 citations · ⚡18

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Aug 17, 2026

Q&A: Rethinking how innovation happens

In his latest book, Professor Eugene Fitzgerald examines the forces that turn breakthroughs into value — and why innovation resists simple formulas.