{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01859229747675963, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.231404958677686, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The role of reversals in order‐restricted inference

A statistical model is said to be an order‐restricted statistical model when its parameter takes its values in a closed convex cone C of the Euclidean space. In recent years, order‐restricted likelihood ratio tests and maximum likelihood estimators have been criticized on the grounds that they may violate a cone order monotonicity (COM) property, and hence reverse the cone order induced by C. The authors argue here that these reversals occur only in the case that C is an obtuse cone, and that in this case COM is an inappropriate requirement for likelihood‐based estimates and tests. They conclude that these procedures thus remain perfectly reasonable procedures for order‐restricted inference.