Efficiency of Generalized Estimating Equations for Binary Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Using standard correlation bounds, we show that in generalized estimation equations (GEEs) the so-called ‘working correlation matrix’R(α) for analysing binary data cannot in general be the true correlation matrix of the data. Methods for estimating the correlation param-eter in current GEE software for binary responses disregard these bounds. To show that the GEE applied on binary data has high efficiency, we use a multivariate binary model so that the covariance matrix from estimating equation theory can be compared with the inverse Fisher information matrix. But R(α) should be viewed as the weight matrix, and it should not be confused with the correlation matrix of the binary responses. We also do a comparison with more general weighted estimating equations by using a matrix Cauchy–Schwarz inequality. Our analysis leads to simple rules for the choice of α in an exchangeable or autoregressive AR(1) weight matrix R(α), based on the strength of dependence between the binary variables. An example is given to illustrate the assessment of dependence and choice of α.
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 | 0.060 | 0.266 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".