Measuring the complexity of generalized linear hierarchical models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Measuring a statistical model's complexity is important for model criticism and comparison. However, it is unclear how to do this for hierarchical models due to uncertainty about how to count the random effects. The authors develop a complexity measure for generalized linear hierarchical models based on linear model theory. They demonstrate the new measure for binomial and Poisson observables modeled using various hierarchical structures, including a longitudinal model and an areal‐data model having both spatial clustering and pure heterogeneity random effects. They compare their new measure to a Bayesian index of model complexity, the effective numberpDof parameters (Spiegelhalter, Best, Carlin & van der Linde 2002); the comparisons are made in the binomial and Poisson cases via simulation and two real data examples. The two measures are usually close, but differ markedly in some instances wherepDis arguably inappropriate. Finally, the authors show how the new measure can be used to approach the difficult task of specifying prior distributions for variance components, and in the process cast further doubt on the commonly‐used vague inverse gamma prior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".