Next Article in Journal
On the Conformable Triple Laplace–Sumudu Transform and Two-Dimensional Fractional Partial Differential Equations
Next Article in Special Issue
Artificial Neural Network Modeling of Darcy–Forchheimer Nanofluid Flow over a Porous Riga Plate: Insights into Brownian Motion, Thermal Radiation, and Activation Energy Effects on Heat Transfer
Previous Article in Journal
Scattering in the Energy Space for the Damped Nonlinear Fourth-Order Schrödinger Equation in Higher Dimensions Under Spherical Symmetry
Previous Article in Special Issue
Adaptive Optics Retinal Image Restoration Using Total Variation with Overlapping Group Sparsity
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

The Cramér–Von Mises Statistic for Continuous Distributions: A Monte Carlo Study for Calculating Its Associated Probability †

by
Lorentz Jäntschi
Department of Physics and Chemistry, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 103-105 Muncii Blvd., 400641 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
The manuscript was presented at the BIOMATH 2025 conference (15–20 June 2025, Sofia Bulgaria). The conference abstract is available at: http://biomath.math.bas.bg/biomath/index.php/bmcs/article/view/1764/1571 (accessed on 2 May 2025).
Symmetry 2025, 17(9), 1542; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym17091542
Submission received: 30 July 2025 / Revised: 6 September 2025 / Accepted: 13 September 2025 / Published: 15 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Computational Mathematics and Its Applications in Numerical Analysis)

Abstract

The Cramér–von Mises (CM) statistic can assess the goodness-of-fit when the null distribution is independent of the underlying distribution, provided it is continuous, resulting in a universality that supports symmetry in its application and interpretation. Along with other order statistics, it serves in a battery of tests. A key element in its use is availability of the cumulative distribution function inverse for calculating the p-value. CM does not have an explicit formula for the cumulative distribution function. Here, a Monte–Carlo experiment was deployed to generate a large amount of data resembling CM. Furthermore, regression analysis was deployed, in order to obtain the dependence of the p-value as function of the statistic and of the sample size. For two cases, one assuming Beta distribution and the other assuming Cauchy distribution, an analysis using the CM statistic was conducted.

1. Introduction

The literature is abundant on the uses of the Cramér–von Mises test in biological sciences for comparing observed distributions of biological phenomena against theoretical models [1] and for testing if certain biological data (like gene expression levels [2] and physiological measurements [3]) follows a theoretical distribution as prerequisite in applying parametric statistical methods.
In relation to complexity [4], the Cramér–von Mises statistic (CM) is used, along with other statistics, to assess the goodness of fit statistics for average yield (per acre) of Bajra in the Punjab province, having 12 alternatives for the population distribution function. This is a regular report using CM (others may be enumerated here: [5,6,7,8]). However, one should notice that the probability associated with the CM statistic is usually not provided (see [4]). In most instances, its absence is masked behind the reporting of software use. Take, for instance, ref. [9], where R (version 4.2.1) is reported in the supplementary material (of  [9]) to provide calculations for the statistic. One explanation is given at the end of the Literature survey subsection below.
Along with Anderson–Darling [10,11] and Kolmogorov–Smirnov [12,13], CM [14,15] is a well-known statistic of which applications include goodness-of-fit testing for discrete [16] and continuous [17,18] distributions and parameter estimation [19,20,21]. In goodness-of-fit testing with CM, tabulated critical values are unfortunately used [17,18,22] (explanation given at the end of Literature survey subsection below). Other applications include using CM as a metric [23].
Take a sample size of n, { x 1 , , x n } . Please note that the values in the sample are not necessarily ordered or distinct. Assume for the sample a theoretical distribution for which the cumulative distribution function (CDF) is available. Then, the cumulative probabilities { q 1 , , q n } can be computed as in Equation (1).
{ q 1 , , q n } = CDF ( { x 1 , , x n } ; α 1 , , α k ) ,
where α 1 , , α k are the parameters of the theoretical distribution.
The existence of the CDF is essential for what follows, since it is the one which brings an arbitrary distribution (of { x 1 , , x n } ) to the standard continuous uniform distribution (of { q 1 , , q n } ). The implicit expectation is that the identification of the parameters did not decrease from the number of the degrees of freedom (n), such as being determined from maximum likelihood estimation (MLE, see [24]). If some of the parameters are explicitly determined using values from the sample (such as using methods of moments), then their number should be decreased from the degrees of freedom of the sample (see [25]). If all of them were explicitly determined using the values from the sample, then the number of the degrees of freedom is reduced correspondingly (to n k ).
The next step is to sort the probabilities, in order to arrive at a permutation of them, as in Equation (2).
{ s 1 , , s n } = Sort ( { q 1 , , q n } ) ,
where sorting is expected to produce an ascending order ( s 1 s n ).
With the sorted probabilities, the Cramér–von Mises sample statistic ( C M ) can be computed as in Equation (3).
CM ( { s 1 , , s n } ) = 1 12 n + i = 1 n 2 i 1 2 n s i 2
The basic CM statistic itself is symmetric. It measures the overall squared deviation between the expected and observed CDF across the range of the data (Equation (3)), treating deviations above and below the theoretical distribution with equal importance, so the statistic itself does not favor one side of the distribution over the other.
As an alternative, one computes the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic ( K S ) with Equation (4).
KS ( { s 1 , , s n } ) = max i = 1 , , n s i i 1 n , i n s i
The final step is using a table (detailing values by sample size n and statistical significance α ) to compare the calculated value C M ( { s 1 , , s n } ) with a tabulated one, for possibly rejecting the hypothesis of the distribution (distribution having CDF from Equation (1)) or of a function (feed with n and C M ( { s 1 , , s n } ) ), which retrieves a probability to observe such a large value simply by chance. The objective is to obtain the latter.

Literature Survey

Specialized CM statistics can be constructed specifically to test whether a distribution is symmetric about zero or another center [26]. These tests use the general quadratic form of the CM statistic, but are formulated to assess whether the distribution of data is mirror-symmetric around a point. In fact, several references propose CM-type statistics where the null hypothesis is the symmetry of the distribution function, and their development ensures that, under the null, the statistic reflects symmetry [27,28,29,30].
In [31], some limited results are reported for the model of CDF CM as a function of n and C M . Thus, following their notation, if  V n ( C M ) CDF CM ( C M ; n ) , then:
  • For V ( x ) lim n V n ( x ) , with  D v ( u ) , the parabolic cylinder function of index v and argument u and u , v R (see p. 687 in [32]):
    V ( x ) = 2 π 1 / 2 x 1 / 4 k = 0 Γ ( k + 1 / 2 ) k ! Γ ( 1 / 2 ) e ( 4 k + 1 ) 2 16 x D 1 / 2 4 k + 1 2 x 1 / 2
  • For x R :
    V n ( x ) = V ( x ) + ψ 1 ( x ) n + O 1 n 2
  • For 1 12 n C M n + 3 12 n 2 :
    V ( x ) = n ! π n / 2 Γ ( n / 2 + 1 ) x 1 12 n n / 2
  • For x R :
    ψ 1 ( x ) = 1 12 V ( x ) 1 9 π 1 / 2 x 3 / 4 k = 0 Γ ( k + 3 / 2 ) k ! Γ ( 3 / 2 ) e ( 4 k + 3 ) 2 16 x D 1 / 2 4 k + 3 2 x 1 / 2 7 144 π 1 / 2 x 3 / 4 k = 0 Γ ( k + 3 / 2 ) k ! Γ ( 3 / 2 ) e ( 4 k + 1 ) 2 16 x D 1 / 2 4 k + 1 2 x 1 / 2 7 144 π 1 / 2 x 3 / 4 k = 0 Γ ( k + 3 / 2 ) k ! Γ ( 3 / 2 ) e ( 4 k + 5 ) 2 16 x D 1 / 2 4 k + 5 2 x 1 / 2 1 72 π 1 / 2 x 5 / 4 k = 0 Γ ( k + 1 / 2 ) k ! Γ ( 1 / 2 ) e ( 4 k + 3 ) 2 16 x D 1 / 2 4 k + 1 2 x 1 / 2 1 72 π 1 / 2 x 5 / 4 k = 0 Γ ( k + 5 / 2 ) k ! Γ ( 5 / 2 ) e ( 4 k + 3 ) 2 16 x D 1 / 2 4 k + 5 2 x 1 / 2
Since the above given formulas are infinite series and/or limited by a range of values, they have reduced practical usability for small samples. No progress has been reported since [31].
To alleviate the inconveniences of the absence of an analytical formula for the calculation of the p-value (named empirical level in [16]), the CM test statistic is formulated in [33] using a norm, with calibration achieved via a wild bootstrap resampling procedure. Please note that [33] does not deal with small samples, using a fixed size of n = 1000 and bootstrapping 1500 samples.

2. Materials and Methods

The first step in obtaining a statistic-probability map for CM is to generate a large amount of data, getting as close as possible to the population of the CM (sample statistic C M is given as Equation (3)). This experiment is usually called Monte–Carlo (MC).
An MC simulation requires a large number of samples drawn from the uniform continuous distribution. The question is, how many?
A (pseudo) random number generator is available in many software programs and, in most cases, it is based on Mersenne Twister [34], uniformly generating numbers from the [ 0 , 1 ) interval.
To ensure a good quality of the simulation, simply using a random number generator is not good enough.
The question is whether the sampling can be manipulated somehow, in order to increase its quality, and the answer is yes.
What if one must extract a sample of size n = 2 (let us extract s 1 and s 2 )? By splitting the [ 0 , 1 ) interval in two equal parts, then extracting two values from it, the analysis of the cases is as follows:
  • Extracting both s 1 and s 2 from [ 0 , 0.5 ) : 25%; extracting both s 1 and s 2 from [ 0.5 , 1 ) : 25%; extracting one (either s 1 or s 2 ) from [ 0 , 0.5 ) and one (either s 1 or s 2 ) from [ 0.5 , 1 ) : 50%.
  • If four extractions are needed, both s 1 and s 2 should be from [ 0 , 0.5 ) in one extraction, in another, both s 1 and s 2 are from [ 0.5 , 1 ) , and in two extractions, one (either s 1 or s 2 ) from [ 0 , 0.5 ) and one (either s 1 or s 2 ) from [ 0.5 , 1 ) : 50% should be extracted.
  • Going further, an extraction from [ 0.5 , 1 ) is equivalent to an extraction from [ 0 , 0.5 ) , at which 0.5 is added.
The analysis above can be generalized for a sample of size n. Thus, if  s 1 , s 2 , …, s n are to be taken from [ 0 , 1 ) , then one can instead extract s 1 , s 2 , …, s n from [ 0 , 0.5 ) and follow Table 1 to proliferate 2 n samples, represented in a simplified way with n + 1 entries, using one generated sample.
According to the design given in Table 1, for n numbers to be drawn from [0, 1), a multiple of n + 1 drawings must be made.
Now, an answer to the question of how many samples can be given: the largest multiple of n + 1 , limited only by hardware and software: the internal memory capacity and the maximum array size.
The algorithm implementing this strategy for CM is given as the Algorithm 1 below.
Algorithm 1 MC experiment for CM (MC-CM)
M A 100,000,000 ; / / maximum   array   size m M A Remainder ( M A , n ) ; / / With Rand a good random number generator For ( k = 1 ; k m ; k + = n + 1 ) For ( i = 1 ; i n ; i + + ) q i Rand ; / / q i [ 0 , 1 ] For ( i = 0 ; i n ; i + + ) For ( j = 1 ; j n ; j + + ) s j q j 2 ; / / s j [ 0 , 0.5 ] For ( j = i + 1 ; j n ; j + + ) s j s j + 1 2 ; / / s j [ 0.5 , 1 ] Sort ( { s 1 , , s n } ) ; / / see   Equation   ( 2 ) CMv k + i CM ( { s 1 , , s n } ) ; / / see   Equation   ( 3 )
CMf k + i n i ; / / see Table 1
EndFor ; EndFor ; Sort ( CMv , CMf ) ; / / CDF   of   CM   is   constructed
The algorithm provides for a given sample size n the CDF for CM, as it results from the MC experiment.
Other strategies of sampling have also been reported, so one can say that the idea behind the MC-CM algorithm is not completely new. Take, for instance, R Software . According to its manuals, it implements the sampling with the Walker’s alias method, as described in [35]. The Walker’s alias method returns integer values 1 i n according to some arbitrary discrete probability distribution [36]. Based on the two tables (one containing probabilities and the other aliases), a random outcome is obtained as an index into the two tables. In a way, the CM-MC algorithm uses tables as well, but the probability one is not internally stored since the distribution is very simple, uniform. Instead of using the second table for aliases, it is used for mirroring the sampling in its subintervals (see Table 1). The proposed method balances the sampling, resembling a stratified sampling much more than a random sampling. In the CM-MC algorithm, the variable m controls stratification, being the greatest multiple of n smaller than the amount of available memory ( M A ). Then, the m samples are generated according to the strategy illustrated in Table 1.
One alternative is to obtain the probability associated with CM statistics by MC sampling on demand [37]. Apart from the disadvantage of this alternative that two different executions produce different probabilities, the proposed CM-MC method offers other advantages, which stem from the reduction of sampling error by applying the sampling refinement illustrated in Table 1.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Raw Data

The MC-CM algorithm generates a very large amount of raw data for a given sample size n. This sample can be seen as close as possible to the CM population statistic ( CM P ). However, different percentiles (very commonly the one at 5%) or tenths of percentiles are usually preferred.
Figure 1 is obtained from the MC-CM algorithm by averaging generated data. The Matlab trisurf function was used for visual effects while the Delaunay function was used for triangulation.
A grid of percentiles (from 1% to 99%) for sample sizes from n = 2 to n = 30 was used to generate Figure 1. The major changes (having abrupt slopes) can be observed for small values of the sample statistic ( C M ).
Quantiles from 0.001 to 0.999 were extracted from the raw data and further investigated to be estimated by a linear or nonlinear model.
A number of 21 MC-CM experiments were run, and 21 independent samples of CM quantiles from 0.001 to 0.999 for n, ranging from 2 to 30, were generated.

3.2. A Nonlinear Model for CM: Using Its Inverse for Calculating the Associated Probability

Since the linear regression is preferred for simplicity, interpretability, and efficiency, and nonlinear regression offers flexibility for complex patterns at the expense of increased complexity and computation, the simplest way is to transform the data to a linear form, but this task is not possible every time. Nonlinear regression was chosen for this paper, since the relationship is clearly nonlinear. This was done to obtain a better fit and flexibility, in order to outweigh the costs of increased complexity and reduced interpretability.
A cubic/cubic rational on n was defined ( R 33 in Equation (9)) since it was identified as a pattern in the raw data, expressing the CM population statistic ( CM P ) as a function of sample size n and cumulative probability q.
R 33 ( z ; c 0 , , c 6 ) = c 0 + c 1 z 1 + c 2 z 2 + c 3 z 3 1 + c 4 n 1 + c 5 n 2 + c 6 n 3
A frontier between two models, one expressing better CM P as function of q, and the other expressing better CM P as function of p-value ( p = 1 q ), was found (Equation (10)).
f CM ( n ) = R 33 ( n , 0.10716 , 1.244 , 4.64 , 5.66 , 11.68 , 43.8 , 53.6 )
The f CM frontier depicted in Figure 2 has a vertical asymptote between 5 and 6 ( n 5.4386 ). When C M is above the f CM frontier, the model having q as an actual parameter is to be used. When C M is below the f CM frontier, the model having 1 q as an actual parameter is to be used.
Both models use a ratio of linear functions of two variables, as in Equation (11).
R 22 ( z ; c 0 , , c 4 ) = c 0 + c 1 ( arctan ( z 1 ) ) 1 / 8 + c 2 ( arctan ( z 1 ) ) 1 / 9 1 + c 3 ( arctan ( z 1 ) ) 1 / 8 + c 4 ( arctan ( z 1 ) ) 1 / 9
where the coefficients of the R 22 function are linear functions of n 1 (like in Equation (12)).
l ( n ; a 0 , a 1 ) = a 0 + a 1 n 1
R 22 is an asymmetrical function, but one can notice that the argument (z in Equation (12)) is always positive.
Thus,
  • The model giving the value of the CM population statistic ( CM P ) as a function of the cumulative probability (q) and sample size (n) uses Equation (13) (Model 1):
    CM P ( q , n ; a 0 , , a 9 ) = R 22 ( q ; l ( n ; a 0 , a 9 ) , l ( n ; a 1 , a 5 ) , l ( n ; a 2 , a 6 ) , l ( n ; a 3 , a 7 ) , l ( n ; a 4 , a 8 ) )
  • the Model giving the value of the CM population statistic ( CM P ) as a function of the p-value ( p = 1 q ) and sample size (n) uses Equation (14) (Model 2):
    CM P ( q , n ; b 0 , , b 9 ) = R 22 ( 1 q ; l ( n ; b 0 , b 9 ) , l ( n ; b 1 , b 5 ) , l ( n ; b 2 , b 6 ) , l ( n ; b 3 , b 7 ) , l ( n ; b 4 , b 8 ) )
It is important to notice the presence of q as an actual parameter for R 22 in Equation (13), and the presence of 1 q as an actual parameter for R 22 in Equation (14). The purpose of changing from q for low values of q (in the vicinity of 0) to 1 q at high values of q (in the vicinity of 1) is to diminish any errors caused by computer roundoff in the vicinity of 1.0 (machine epsilon limit, see for instance [38]).
The coefficients were identified using a uniform bivariate grid of 999 values for q, from q = 0.001 to q = 0.999 , and 29 values for n, from n = 2 to n = 30 .
In order to obtain q (or, more often, of interest is the p-value, p = 1 q ) for given n and C M (which is a sample statistic), the numerical inverse of the functions from Equations (13) and (14) must be obtained.
Distinct values for the coefficients from Equations (13) and (14) were obtained for each of the 21 MC simulations. Table 2 contains the values of the coefficients, along with their 95% confidence intervals (±95% CI).
The significance of the models is very high. In Table 2, the coefficient of variation varies from about 5 · 10 7 (at i = 4 ) to about 4 · 10 3 (at i = 5 ) for Model 1, and from about 2 · 10 6 (at i = 4 ) to about 2 · 10 2 (at i = 8 ) for Model 2. From 21 resamples, for building Model 1, 12,991.5 ± 0.5 ( n , q , CM P ) pairs of data were used, while for building Model 2, 15,979.5 ± 0.5 ( n , q , CM P ) pairs of data were used (please note that the frontier between the models is a rational function, Equation (10)). The frontier between the models was chosen in such a way that total square error (from Model 1 and Model 2) is minimized. Determination coefficients between CM P values calculated with Equation (13) and MC simulated ones were very high, namely 1 r 2 < 3 · 10 10 (standard error of the residuals was 2 · 10 9 , with a standard deviation obtained from the 21 replicates of 2 · 10 12 ). Similarly, the determination coefficients between CM P values calculated with Equation (14) and MC simulated ones were even greater, namely 1 r 2 < 9 · 10 12 (standard error of the residuals was 3 · 10 9 , with a standard deviation obtained from the 21 replicates of 3 · 10 12 ).
Since the first report of the calculation of p-value from the CM in [39] for the analysis of 50 samples of chemical compounds with potent property and/or activity, a series of others were communicated, and the last was in [40] for two electrochemical properties of a sample of 4-(azulen-1-yl)-2,6-divinylpyridine derivatives.

3.3. New Samples Analyzed with CM

In [41,42,43,44,45,46,47], datasets following theoretical distributions are reported. Thus, ref. [41] analyzes Beta distribution fit with the KS statistic, ref. [42] analyzes Beta distribution fit with CM, KS, and three other alternatives, ref. [43] analyzes Cauchy distribution fit with KS, and ref. [44] analyzes Cauchy distribution fit with CM, KS, and one other alternative. The others analyze generalizations of the Cauchy and Beta distributions with KS (in [45,46]), and CM, KS, and one other alternative (in [47]). Here, different alternative distributions for these data are analyzed.

3.3.1. Case Study on Beta Distribution

The PDF of the Beta distribution is given in Appendix A.1. In Table 3, the agreement measured by the Cramér–von Mises statistic is given.
Remarks on Table 3:
  • Parameter estimation was conducted with MLE, so the number of degrees of freedom is equal to the sample size in each instance;
  • The agreement between statistics is remarkable on average: p ¯ CM = 0.624 and p ¯ KS = 0.628 —this is the expected result, since one should expect both statistics to perform the same on random picked datasets. Student’s t-test does not discriminate between the two series of probabilities: there is a 98% likelihood to belong to the same population (one can test for paired probabilities, when the matching probability is somewhat lower, 92%);
  • At a significance level of 5%, all samples passed the hypothesis that they are possibly drawn from the Beta distribution (it was not possible to reject the null hypothesis that the Beta distribution is not the population from which they were drawn).

3.3.2. Case Study on Cauchy Distribution

The PDF of the Cauchy distribution is given in Appendix A.2. In Table 4, the agreement measured by the Cramér–von Mises statistic is given.
Remarks on Table 4:
  • Parameter estimation was conducted with MLE, so the number of degrees of freedom is equal to the sample size in each instance;
  • The agreement between statistics is remarkable on average: p ¯ CM = 0.3273 and p ¯ KS = 0.3304 —this is the expected result since one should expect both statistics to perform the same on random picked datasets. Student’s t-test does not discriminate between the two series of probabilities: there is a 99% likelihood of belonging to the same population (one can test for paired probabilities when the matching probability is lower, 80%);
  • At a significance level of 1%, there is some disagreement between the CM and KS statistics at Wheaton river sample if the hypothesis of being drawn from the Cauchy distribution must be rejected or not.
The case of the Wheaton river sample being drawn (or not) from a Cauchy population of data opens an opportunity for discussion.
There is no clear method to determine which statistic is best, even though some authors compare the statistics by power and suggest that the Anderson–Darling statistic is most powerful. However, having power is one thing, and accurately assessing the fit is another. No mathematical analysis based on power alone can dismiss the usefulness of one statistic over another, for a simple reason: the intrinsic variability of a distribution having one, two, three, four, or more parameters cannot be trapped by only one (nonparametric) statistic. Fisher recommends combining independent tests of significance [48]. A combined probability chi-squared test on 0.0125 and 0.0005 gives a probability of 2.4‰, which can be used to reject the hypothesis that the Wheaton river sample data belongs to a Cauchy distribution population of data.
If the method of estimating the parameters of the theoretical distribution uses the maximization of the likelihood, then there is no need to reduce the sample size when the probability of CM (or any other statistic) is calculated [24]. On the other hand, with the method of moments, degrees of freedom must be reduced with the number of parameters of the underlying distribution [25].

4. Conclusions

A composite model providing the CM statistic as a function of the sample size and the probability has been obtained. The model is very accurate in estimations of the CM statistic for the probability within the range [0.001, 0.999] and for the sample size within the range [2, 30]. The probability associated with the CM statistic can be obtained from the model and has been used, as given here, in testing the goodness of fit in case studies in the past and in two less common cases here (one measuring the agreement of a sample with Cauchy distribution, and one measuring the agreement of a sample with Beta distribution). Combining independent tests of significance is recommended in any instance of decision split based on individual tests.

5. Future Work

Equations (13) and (14), combined with Equation (9), represent an approximation, and a very good one, considering the obtained correlation coefficients. However, as with any other approximation, it is possible to be improved upon.
Improvement can be obtained by having even more accurate sampling from the CM population statistic (the sampling as given in Table 1 can be refined further), having more cut points (permiles has been used here, permillion quantiles can be used instead), and having more computing memory (here, one can move from internal memory to disk memory, especially since the discovery of the solid state drives with much higher speed, sometimes comparable with internal memory speed, with some additional computational time costs).
Equations (13) and (14), combined with Equation (9), are intended to be used within the applicability domain defined by the sampling: for p-values ranging from 0.001 to 0.999 and sample sizes n ranging from 2 to 30. Since the proposed model is nonlinear, the use of it outside of this domain should be made with caution and reservation, nonlinear models being known for their low predictability outside of the applicability domain. One can look to work around this issue, possibly by incorporating an asymptotic formula in it.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data used to construct the CM population statistic is available on request from the author and also has been submitted for publication in Data journal. DOI is pending.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

CDFCumulative distribution function
α Statistical significance
qCumulative probability
p-valueComplement of the cumulative probability ( p = 1 q )
CMCramér–von Mises test
C M Cramér–von Mises sample statistic (value, variable)
CMPCramér–von Mises population statistic
CIConfidence interval
MLEMaximum likelihood estimation
MCMonte Carlo
PHPRecursive acronym for hypertext preprocessor, programming language
r 2 The coefficient of determination (the square of the sample correlation coefficient)
RandA random number from standard uniform distribution
SortA function sorting ascending an numeric array
BetaBeta distribution
CauchyCauchy distribution

Appendix A. Analitical Formulas for Probability Distribution Functions Used for the Analysis of the Data Samples from Literature

Appendix A.1. Beta Distribution

PDF Beta ( x ; a , b , c , d ) = Γ 1 ( a + b ) Γ ( a ) Γ ( b ) ( x c ) a 1 ( d x ) b 1 ( d c ) 1 a b

Appendix A.2. Cauchy Distribution

PDF Cauchy ( x ; a , b ) = 1 π b 1 + x a b 2 1

References

  1. Schloss, P.D.; Larget, B.R.; Handelsman, J. Integration of microbial ecology and statistics: A test to compare gene libraries. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 5485–5492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Qiu, X.; Xiao, Y.; Gordon, A.; Yakovlev, A. Assessing stability of gene selection in microarray data analysis. BMC Bioinform. 2006, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Merkle, E.C.; Zeileis, A. Tests of measurement invariance without subgroups: A generalization of classical methods. Psychometrika 2013, 78, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Arshad, M.Z.; Iqbal, M.Z.; Were, F.; Aldallal, R.; Riad, F.H.; Bakr, M.E.; Tashkandy, Y.A.; Hussam, E.; Gemeay, A.M. An alternative statistical model to analysis pearl millet (Bajra) yield in province Punjab and Pakistan. Complexity 2023, 2023, 8713812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alqasem, O.A.; Nassar, M.; Abd Elwahab, M.E.; Elshahhat, A. A new inverted Pham distribution for data modeling of mechanical components and diamond in South-West Africa. Phys. Scr. 2024, 99, 115268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chaudhary, A.K.; Telee, L.B.S.; Karki, M.; Kumar, V. Statistical analysis of air quality dataset of Kathmandu, Nepal, with a New Extended Kumaraswamy Exponential Distribution. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 21073–21088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, C.; Zhu, H. Tests of fit for the power function lognormal distribution. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0298309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chau, T.T.; Nguyen, T.T.H.; Nguyen, L.; Do, T.D. Wind Speed Probability Distribution Based on Adaptive Bandwidth Kernel Density Estimation Model for Wind Farm Application. Wind Energy 2025, 28, e2970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chotsiri, P.; Yodsawat, P.; Hoglund, R.M.; Simpson, J.A.; Tarning, J. Pharmacometric and statistical considerations for dose optimization. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 2025, 2025, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Anderson, T.; Darling, D. Asymptotic theory of certain ’goodness-of-fit’ criteria based on stochastic processes. Ann. Math. Stat. 2006, 23, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Anderson, T.; Darling, D. A test of goodness of fit. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1954, 49, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kolmogoroff, A. Confidence limits for an unknown distribution function. Ann. Math. Stat. 1941, 12, 461–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Smirnov, N. Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions. Ann. Math. Stat. 1948, 19, 279–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cramér, H. On the composition of elementary errors. Scand. Actuar. J. 1928, 1, 13–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. VonMises, R. Wahrscheinlichkeit, Statistik und Wahrheit; Julius Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Traison, T.; Vaidyanathan, V. Goodness-of-Fit Tests for COM-Poisson Distribution Using Stein’s Characterization. Austrian J. Stat. 2025, 54, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Muhammad, M.; Abba, B. A Bayesian inference with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) framework for a three-parameter model with reliability applications. Kuwait J. Sci. 2025, 52, 100365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kumar, S.A.; Sridhar, A.; Rekha, S.; Nagarjuna, V.B.; Ramanaiah, M. Comparative Performance of Burr Type XII 3P, Dagum Type I 3P and Log-Logistic 3P Distributions in Modeling Ozone (O3), PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations. Res. J. Chem. Environ. 2025, 29, 39–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Singh Nayal, A.; Ramos, P.L.; Tyagi, A.; Singh, B. Improving inference in exponential logarithmic distribution. Commun. -Stat.-Simul. Comput. 2024, 1–25, Online first. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Singh, B.; Tyagi, S.; Singh, R.P.; Tyagi, A. Modified Topp-Leone Distribution: Properties, Classical and Bayesian Estimation with Application to COVID-19 and Reliability Data. Thail. Stat. 2025, 23, 72–96. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ibrahim, M.; Shah, M.K.A.; Ahsan-ul Haq, M. New two-parameter XLindley distribution with statistical properties, simulation and applications on lifetime data. Int. J. Model. Simul. 2025, 45, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sunusi, N.; Auliana, N.H. Assessing SPI and SPEI for drought forecasting through the power law process: A case study in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. MethodsX 2025, 14, 103235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, Y.; Ding, T.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y. A robust and powerful metric for distributional homogeneity. Stat. Neerl. 2025, 79, e12370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fisher, R.A. On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. Contain. Pap. Math. Phys. Character 1922, 222, 309–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fisher, R.A. Theory of statistical estimation. Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 1925, 22, 700–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Votaw, D.F., Jr. Testing compound symmetry in a normal multivariate distribution. Ann. Math. Stat. 1948, 19, 447–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Srinivasan, R.; Godio, L. A Cramér-von Mises type statistic for testing symmetry. Biometrika 1974, 61, 196–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gregory, G.G. Cramer-von Mises type tests for symmetry. South Afr. Stat. J. 1977, 11, 49–61. [Google Scholar]
  29. Koziol, J.A. On a Cramér-von Mises-type statistic for testing symmetry. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1980, 75, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Aki, S. Asymptotic distribution of a Cramér-von Mises type statistic for testing symmetry when the center is estimated. Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 1981, 33, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Csörgo, S.; Faraway, J.J. The exact and asymptotic distributions of Cramér-von Mises statistics. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 1996, 58, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Abramowitz, M.; Stegun, I.A.; Miller, D. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs and Mathematical Tables (National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series No. 55); U. S. Gov. Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  33. Álvarez-Liébana, J.; López-Pérez, A.; González-Manteiga, W.; Febrero-Bande, M. A goodness-of-fit test for functional time series with applications to Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2025, 203, 108092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Matsumoto, M.; Nishimura, T. Mersenne twister: A 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. (TOMACS) 1998, 8, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Variance Reduction. In Stochastic Simulation; Ripley, B.D., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1987; Chapter 5; pp. 118–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Walker, A.J. New fast method for generating discrete random numbers with arbitrary frequency distributions. Electron. Lett. 1974, 10, 127–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Azaïs, R.; Ferrigno, S.; Martinez, M.J. cvmgof: An R package for Cramér–von Mises goodness-of-fit tests in regression models. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 2022, 92, 1246–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Goldberg, D. What every computer scientist should know about floating-point arithmetic. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 1991, 23, 5–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jäntschi, L.; Bolboacă, S.D. Performances of Shannon’s entropy statistic in assessment of distribution of data. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Chem. 2017, 28, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ungureanu, E.M.; Ștefaniu, A.; Isopescu, R.; Mușina, C.E.; Bujduveanu, M.R.; Jäntschi, L. Extended characteristic polynomial estimating the electrochemical behaviour of some 4-(azulen-1-yl)-2,6-divinylpyridine derivatives. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 2025, 15, 2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. AbouRizk, S.M.; Halpin, D.W.; Wilson, J.R. Fitting beta distributions based on sample data. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1994, 120, 288–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Raschke, M. Empirical behaviour of tests for the beta distribution and their application in environmental research. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2011, 25, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jayakumar, K.; Fasna, K. On a new generalization of Cauchy distribution. Asian J. Stat. Sci. 2022, 2, 61–81. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rublik, F. A quantile goodness-of-fit test for Cauchy distribution, based on extreme order statistics. Appl. Math. 2001, 46, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Akinsete, A.; Famoye, F.; Lee, C. The beta-Pareto distribution. Statistics 2008, 42, 547–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Alzaatreh, A.; Lee, C.; Famoye, F.; Ghosh, I. The generalized Cauchy family of distributions with applications. J. Stat. Distrib. Appl. 2016, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hassan, A.S.; Alsadat, N.; Elgarhy, M.; Chesneau, C.; Mohamed, R.E. Different classical estimation methods using ranked set sampling and data analysis for the inverse power Cauchy distribution. J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 2023, 16, 100685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fisher, R.A. Combining independent tests of significance. Am. Stat. 1948, 2, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. A 3D plot for CDF of CM as a function of sample size (n) and statistic value ( C M ).
Figure 1. A 3D plot for CDF of CM as a function of sample size (n) and statistic value ( C M ).
Symmetry 17 01542 g001
Figure 2. Frontier between two CDF CM models.
Figure 2. Frontier between two CDF CM models.
Symmetry 17 01542 g002
Table 1. Refining the sampling.
Table 1. Refining the sampling.
Is s i [ 0 , 0.5 ) ? ( s i [ 0.5 , 1 ) Otherwise)Occurrence
i1j j + 1 n
d 0 0000 n 0
d j 0011 n j
d n 1111 n n
d j = { s 1 , , s n } .
Table 2. Model parameters.
Table 2. Model parameters.
Coeff.
Number
Model 1 (Equation (13))Model 2 (Equation (14))
a i Value ±95% CI b i Value ±95% CI
i = 0 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.052099 0.000012
i = 1 0.0245416 0.0000013 0.052099 0.000093
i = 2 0.0247069 0.0000013 0.432868 0.000105
i = 3 7.8481554 0.0000041 7.453054 0.000018
i = 4 8.8490877 0.0000041 8.450995 0.000018
i = 5 0.0014491 0.0000062 0.027440 0.000430
i = 6 0.0014551 0.0000062 0.031700 0.000490
i = 7 0.0603235 0.0000373 0.004058 0.000086
i = 8 0.0603182 0.0000375 0.004092 0.000087
i = 9 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.004292 0.000055
Table 3. Measuring agreement for Beta distribution with Cramér–von Mises statistic.
Table 3. Measuring agreement for Beta distribution with Cramér–von Mises statistic.
Sample Dataabcd CM p CM KS p KS
Dozer cycle in [41]2.37983.28480.08822.11990.0367650.9470.507990.944
Truck cycle in [41]1.83123.65636.785216.7460.0800000.6920.728440.632
May 2007 in [42]1.53560.86140.32000.97000.2079800.2530.900670.354
May 2008 in [42]0.48550.63850.39000.98000.0436920.9150.637700.770
First set in [43]3.25248.35500.46148.35340.0547350.8500.554560.899
Second set in [43]3.5028 1.12 · 10 7 −0.5478 3.92 · 10 6 0.3690100.0841.094600.169
a, b, c, d were obtained from MLE; p CM = 1 CDF CM ( C M ) ; p KS = 1 CDF KS ( K S ) .
Table 4. Measuring agreement for Cauchy distribution with the Cramér–von Mises statistic.
Table 4. Measuring agreement for Cauchy distribution with the Cramér–von Mises statistic.
Sample Dataab CM p CM KS p KS
Venus observations in [44]0.02670.26130.0243320.99620.37100.9968
Wheaton river in [45]7.07186.46220.7054200.01252.01890.0005
Floyd river in [45]2878.91928.80.4481700.05091.29210.0609
Guinea pigs survival in [46]139.3248.1380.4511900.05041.20170.1004
Nile river in [46]879.34103.890.3516900.09451.31170.0579
Accelerated life tests in [47]6.84260.88960.0691990.75910.64650.7657
a and b were obtained from MLE; p CM = 1 CDF CM ( C M ) ; p KS = 1 CDF KS ( K S ) .
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jäntschi, L. The Cramér–Von Mises Statistic for Continuous Distributions: A Monte Carlo Study for Calculating Its Associated Probability. Symmetry 2025, 17, 1542. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym17091542

AMA Style

Jäntschi L. The Cramér–Von Mises Statistic for Continuous Distributions: A Monte Carlo Study for Calculating Its Associated Probability. Symmetry. 2025; 17(9):1542. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym17091542

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jäntschi, Lorentz. 2025. "The Cramér–Von Mises Statistic for Continuous Distributions: A Monte Carlo Study for Calculating Its Associated Probability" Symmetry 17, no. 9: 1542. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym17091542

APA Style

Jäntschi, L. (2025). The Cramér–Von Mises Statistic for Continuous Distributions: A Monte Carlo Study for Calculating Its Associated Probability. Symmetry, 17(9), 1542. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym17091542

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop