A generalized Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test for a family of generalized linear models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generalized linear models (GLMs) are very widely used, but formal goodness-of-fit (GOF) tests for the overall fit of the model seem to be in wide use only for certain classes of GLMs. We develop and apply a new goodness-of-fit test, similar to the well-known and commonly used Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) test, that can be used with a wide variety of GLMs. The test statistic is a variant of the HL statistic, but we rigorously derive an asymptotically correct sampling distribution using methods of Stute and Zhu (Scand J Stat 29(3):535-545, 2002) and demonstrate its consistency. We compare the performance of our new test with other GOF tests for GLMs, including a naive direct application of the HL test to the Poisson problem. Our test provides competitive or comparable power in various simulation settings and we identify a situation where a naive version of the test fails to hold its size. Our generalized HL test is straightforward to implement and interpret and an R package is publicly available. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11749-023-00912-8.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it