Model Selection for Poisson Regression via Association Rules Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study integrates association rules analysis, a methodology for selecting potential interactions, with Poisson regression modeling. Though typically ignored in conventional Poisson regression, interactions are very common in practice. However, selecting a Poisson regression model when many main effects and interactions are involved is problematic. In this study, we develop a model selection framework to address this problem. Specifically, we focus on building an optimal Poisson regression model by (1) discretizing the response and quantitative attributes into levels; (2) exploring via association rules analysis combinations of input variables that have a significant impact on response; (3) selecting potential (low- and high-order) interactions; (4) converting these potential interactions into new variables; and (5) selecting variables from all the input variables and the newly created variables (interactions) to build the optimal Poisson regression model. Our model selection procedure is the first approach to enable a global search for potential interactions and the first to establish the optimal combination of main effects and interaction effects in the Poisson regression model. A real-life example is given for illustration. It is shown that the proposed method finds the optimal model including important interactions that cannot be found by other existing 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 | 0.019 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".