Confidence intervals for multinomial logistic regression in sparse data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Logistic regression is one of the most widely used regression models in practice, but alternatives to conventional maximum likelihood estimation methods may be more appropriate for small or sparse samples. Modification of the logistic regression score function to remove first-order bias is equivalent to penalizing the likelihood by the Jeffreys prior, and yields penalized maximum likelihood estimates (PLEs) that always exist, even in samples in which maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) are infinite. PLEs are an attractive alternative in small-to-moderate-sized samples, and are preferred to exact conditional MLEs when there are continuous covariates. We present methods to construct confidence intervals (CI) in the penalized multinomial logistic regression model, and compare CI coverage and length for the PLE-based methods to that of conventional MLE-based methods in trinomial logistic regressions with both binary and continuous covariates. Based on simulation studies in sparse data sets, we recommend profile CIs over asymptotic Wald-type intervals for the PLEs in all cases. Furthermore, when finite sample bias and data separation are likely to occur, we prefer PLE profile CIs over MLE methods.
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 | 0.057 | 0.470 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".