Comparison of Test Statistics for Testing the Regression Coefficients in the Ridge, Liu and Kibria-Lukman Logistic Regression Models: Simulation and Application
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
Ridge, Liu and Kibria- Lukman regression are methods that have been proposed to solve the multicollinearity problem for both linear and non-linear regression models. This paper studies different Ridge, Liu and Kibria-Lukman regression z-type tests of the individual coefficients for logistic regression model. A simulation study was conducted to evaluate and compare the performance of the test statistics with respect to their empirical sizes and powers under different simulation conditions. Our simulations allowed us to identify among the proposed tests, which ones maintain type I error rates close to the 5% nominal level, while at the at same time showing considerable gain in statistical power over the standard Wald z-test commonly used in logistic regression model. Our paper is the first of its kind in comparing the z-type tests for these different shrinkage approaches to estimation in logistic regression. The results will be of value for applied statisticians and researchers in the area of regression models.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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