docs: normalize stats/base/dists/degenerate/logpmf description to sibling convention

[Planeshifter]

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request normalizes stats/base/dists/degenerate/logpmf documentation and metadata to the noun-phrase convention used by every other package in the namespace.

Namespace summary

• Members: 15 packages under stats/base/dists/degenerate (cdf, ctor, entropy, logcdf, logpdf, logpmf, mean, median, mgf, mode, pdf, pmf, quantile, stdev, variance).
• Analyzed against ctor excluded from the doc-shape vote (it is a class constructor, not a numeric routine, and legitimately lacks the C native infrastructure the rest of the namespace shares).
• Features with clear majority (≥75%): package.json description form (13/14), README.md short-blurb form (13/14), lib/index.js @module docstring form (13/14), self-name-as-keyword (13/14).
• Features without clear majority (excluded from drift analysis): docs/repl.txt acronym convention across the three log* variants (mixed — logcdf uses (logCDF) in some places and (CDF) in others), "discrete" vs "continuous" keyword tagging, presence of docs/img/equation_*.svg equation renders.

stats/base/dists/degenerate/logpmf

Four related drift items, one outlier package:

• package.json description was the sole imperative-form string ("Natural logarithm of the probability mass function (PMF) for a degenerate distribution."); 13/14 sibling packages, including the direct analogs logcdf and logpdf, use the noun-phrase shape "Degenerate distribution <thing>.". Normalized to "Degenerate distribution logarithm of probability mass function (logPMF)." to match logpdf verbatim.
• README.md short blurb followed the same imperative shape (13/14 sibling conformance) and used the wrong acronym (PMF) where logpdf's blurb uses (logPDF). Rewritten to match.
• lib/index.js @module docstring on line 22 had the same imperative form; 13/14 sibling @module docstrings use Degenerate distribution ... noun-phrase.
• package.json keywords was missing "logpmf"; 13/14 sibling packages include their own function name as a keyword, and both logcdf and logpdf include their log* keyword next to the plain cdf/pdf entry.

Validation

• Structural extraction across 15 packages (file tree, package.json shape, README section list, manifest.json, test/benchmark/examples filename sets).
• Semantic extraction across all 14 non-ctor packages via inline inspection of lib/main.js, lib/index.js, docs/repl.txt, and docs/types/index.d.ts.
• Adversarial verification of the logpmf correction against sibling conventions: no test files, benchmarks, or downstream consumers read the drifted strings; no Do not manually edit marker guards any of the four edited locations; both direct analogs (logcdf, logpdf) confirm the target form.
• Explicitly excluded: the ctor package's absence of C-native infrastructure (structural but justified — it is a JS class), main.js JSDoc acronym form for the three log* variants (only two other samples with mixed conventions between them), keyword ordering of "ln"/"natural" (cosmetic).

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• None.

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

Diff is 4 lines across 3 files, no behavior change. docs: label is used per the commit message guide — the priority order puts docs above chore when a change mixes README/JSDoc updates with package.json metadata.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

Drafted by Claude Code as part of an automated cross-package drift-detection routine that extracts structural and semantic features from every package in a randomly-picked namespace, identifies the majority pattern per feature (≥75% threshold), and proposes fixes to outliers. All four corrections here were reviewed against direct sibling analogs before applying.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
stats/base/dists/degenerate/logpmf	$\\color{green}249/249$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}19/19$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}4/4$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}249/249$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.