Bayesian analysis of two-part nonlinear latent variable model: Semiparametric method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-part model (TPM) is a widely appreciated statistical method for analyzing semi-continuous data. Semi-continuous data can be viewed as arising from two distinct stochastic processes: one governs the occurrence or binary part of data and the other determines the intensity or continuous part. In the regression setting with the semi-continuous outcome as functions of covariates, the binary part is commonly modelled via logistic regression and the continuous component via a log-normal model. The conventional TPM, still imposes assumptions such as log-normal distribution of the continuous part, with no unobserved heterogeneity among the response, and no collinearity among covariates, which are quite often unrealistic in practical applications. In this article, we develop a two-part nonlinear latent variable model (TPNLVM) with mixed multiple semi-continuous and continuous variables. The semi-continuous variables are treated as indicators of the latent factor analysis along with other manifest variables. This reduces the dimensionality of the regression model and alleviates the potential multicollinearity problems. Our TPNLVM can accommodate the nonlinear relationships among latent variables extracted from the factor analysis. To downweight the influence of distribution deviations and extreme observations, we develop a Bayesian semiparametric analysis procedure. The conventional parametric assumptions on the related distributions are relaxed and the Dirichlet process (DP) prior is used to improve model fitting. By taking advantage of the discreteness of DP, our method is effective in capturing the heterogeneity underlying population. Within the Bayesian paradigm, posterior inferences including parameters estimates and model assessment are carried out through Markov Chains Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling method. To facilitate posterior sampling, we adapt the Polya-Gamma stochastic representation for the logistic model. Using simulation studies, we examine properties and merits of our proposed methods and illustrate our approach by evaluating the effect of treatment on cocaine use and examining whether the treatment effect is moderated by psychiatric problems.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".