A Combined Nonlinear Programming Model and Kibria Method for Choosing Ridge Parameter Regression

Ridge regression solves multicollinearity problems by introducing a biasing parameter that is called ridge parameter; it shrinks the estimates as well as their standard errors in order to reach acceptable results. Many methods are available for estimating a ridge parameter. This article has considered some of these methods and also proposed a combined nonlinear programming model and Kibria method. A simulation study has been made to evaluate the performance of the proposed estimators based on the minimum mean squared error criterion. The simulation study indicates that under certain conditions the proposed estimators outperform the least squares (LS) estimators and other popular existing estimators. Moreover, the new proposed model is applied on dataset that suffers also from the presence of heteroscedastic errors.     

A note on approximate confidence limits for the negative binomial model

Four methods of approximating confidence limits for the single negative binomial parameter, P, are outlined and an empirical study is presented. Some remarks on prediction intervals are also included.     

A simulation study of ridge and other regression estimators

We consider a number of estimators of regression coefficients, all of generalized ridge, or 'shrinkage' type. Results of a simulation study indicate that with respect to two commonly used mean square error criteria, two ordinary ridge estimators, one proposed by Hoerl, Kennard and Baldwin, and the other introduced here, perform substantially better than both least squares and the other estimators discussed here     

Prediction Techniques for Box–Cox Regression Models

This article reviews several techniques useful for forming point and interval predictions in regression models with Box-Cox transformed variables. The techniques reviewed—plug-in, mean squared error analysis, predictive likelihood, and stochastic simulation—take account of nonnormality and parameter uncertainty in varying degrees. A Monte Carlo study examining their small-sample accuracy indicates that uncertainty about the Box–Cox transformation parameter may be relatively unimportant. For certain parameters, deterministic point predictions are biased, and plug-in prediction intervals are also biased. Stochastic simulation, as usually carried out, leads to badly biased predictions. A modification of the usual approach renders stochastic simulation predictions largely unbiased.     

Simulation of the p-generalized Gaussian distribution

In this paper, we introduce the p-generalized polar methods for the simulation of the p-generalized Gaussian distribution. On the basis of geometric measure representations, the well-known Box–Muller method and the Marsaglia–Bray rejecting polar method for the simulation of the Gaussian distribution are generalized to simulate the p-generalized Gaussian distribution, which fits much more flexibly to data than the Gaussian distribution and has already been applied in various fields of modern sciences. To prove the correctness of the p-generalized polar methods, we give stochastic representations, and to demonstrate their adequacy, we perform a comparison of six simulation techniques w.r.t. the goodness of fit and the complexity. The competing methods include adapted general methods and another special method. Furthermore, we prove stochastic representations for all the adapted methods.     

Comparison of ANOVA-F and ANOM tests with regard to type I error rate and test power

A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to compare the type I error rate and test power of the analysis of means (ANOM) test to the one-way analysis of variance F-test (ANOVA-F). Simulation results showed that as long as the homogeneity of the variance assumption was satisfied, regardless of the shape of the distribution, number of group and the combination of observations, both ANOVA-F and ANOM test have displayed similar type I error rates. However, both tests have been negatively affected from the heterogeneity of the variances. This case became more obvious when the variance ratios increased. The test power values of both tests changed with respect to the effect size (Δ), variance ratio and sample size combinations. As long as the variances are homogeneous, ANOVA-F and ANOM test have similar powers except unbalanced cases. Under unbalanced conditions, the ANOVA-F was observed to be powerful than the ANOM-test. On the other hand, an increase in total number of observations caused the power values of ANOVA-F and ANOM test approach to each other. The relations between effect size (Δ) and the variance ratios affected the test power, especially when the sample sizes are not equal. As ANOVA-F has become to be superior in some of the experimental conditions being considered, ANOM is superior in the others. However, generally, when the populations with large mean have larger variances as well, ANOM test has been seen to be superior. On the other hand, when the populations with large mean have small variances, generally, ANOVA-F has observed to be superior. The situation became clearer when the number of the groups is 4 or 5.     

Accent on Teaching Materials

Estimation of covariance components in the multivariate random-effect model with nested covariance structure is discussed. There are two covariance matrices to be estimated, namely, the between-group and the within-group covariance matrices. These two covariance matrices are most often estimated by forming a multivariate analysis of variance and equating mean square matrices to their expectations. Such a procedure involves taking the difference between the between-group mean square and the within-group mean square matrices, and often produces an estimated between-group covariance matrix that is not nonnegative definite. We present estimators of the two covariance matrices that are always proper covariance matrices. The estimators are the restricted maximum likelihood estimators if the random effects are normally distributed. The estimation procedure is extended to more complicated models, including the twofold nested and the mixed-effect models. A numerical example is presented to illustrate the use of the estimation procedure.     

Two Pitfalls of Using Standard Regression Diagnostics When Both X and Y Have Measurement Error

Modern exploratory data analysis produces models that are not based on physical theory but that are consistent with pictures of the data. When both X and Y have error this can be risky, because important features are hidden. Two examples are given that show that systematic model departures and heteroscedasticity may not be detectable with standard regression diagnostics.     

Statistical Microcomputing—Like it is

A statistical software package is a collaborative effort between a program's authors and users. When statistical analysis took place exclusively on mainframe computers, the entire statistical community was served by some three to six major packages, which helped to ensure that program errors would be quickly uncovered and corrected. The current trend toward performing statistical analysis on microcomputers has resulted in an explosion of software of varying quality, with more than 200 packages for the IBM PC alone. Since all of these programs are competing for the same base of knowledgeable users, the number of sophisticated users per package is dramatically less than for mainframe packages; the net result is that problems in any particular package are more likely to go unnoticed and uncorrected. For example, the most widely used shareware package contains major errors that should cause it to be rejected out of hand, and three best-selling packages analyze unbalanced two-factor experiments using an approximate technique originally developed for hand calculation. Several strategies are offered to help author and user reveal any problems that might be present in their software.