Permutation tests for univariate or multivariate analysis of variance and regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most appropriate strategy to be used to create a permutation distribution for tests of individual terms in complex experimental designs is currently unclear. There are often many possibilities, including restricted permutation or permutation of some form of residuals. This paper provides a summary of recent empirical and theoretical results concerning available methods and gives recommendations for their use in univariate and multivariate applications. The focus of the paper is on complex designs in analysis of variance and multiple regression (i.e., linear models). The assumption of exchangeability required for a permutation test is assured by random allocation of treatments to units in experimental work. For observational data, exchangeability is tantamount to the assumption of independent and identically distributed errors under a null hypothesis. For partial regression, the method of permutation of residuals under a reduced model has been shown to provide the best test. For analysis of variance, one must first identify exchangeable units by considering expected mean squares. Then, one may generally produce either (i) an exact test by restricting permutations or (ii) an approximate test by permuting raw data or some form of residuals. The latter can provide a more powerful test in many situations.
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 | 0.077 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".