Standard Errors of Prediction in Generalized Linear Mixed Models
广义线性混合模型中的预测标准误AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究小域混合模型的预测方差,预测对象并非明确的宏观时间序列或金融收益,因此不据预测一词强行分类。
广义线性混合模型中的预测标准误AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The unconditional mean squared error of prediction (UMSEP) is widely used as a measure of prediction variance for inferences concerning linear combinations of fixed and random effects in the classical normal theory mixed model. But the UMSEP is inappropriate for generalized linear mixed models where the conditional variance of the random effects depends on the data. When the random effects describe variation between independent small domains and domain-specific prediction is of interest, we propose a conditional mean squared error of prediction (CMSEP) as a general measure of prediction variance. The CMSEP is shown to be the sum of the conditional variance and a positive correction that accounts for the sampling variability of parameter estimates. We derive a second-order-correct estimate of the CMSEP that consists of three components: (a) a plug-in estimate of the conditional variance, (b) a plug-in estimate of a Taylor series approximation to the correction term, and (c) a bootstrap estimate of the bias incurred in (a). In the normal case our formulas based on the CMSEP provide a conditional alternative to the unconditional expansions of Fuller and Harter, Kackar and Harville, and Prasad and Rao. In addition, we show that the prediction variance formula obtained by Wolfinger and O'Connell and suggested by Breslow and Clayton is in fact Laplace's approximation to the CMSEP based on the assumption that the variance components are known and ignoring the bias-correction term. Thus this formula has a conditional interpretation in the small-domain setting and should not be interpreted unconditionally. Finally, although use of the CMSEP is motivated using entirely frequentist arguments, our second-order approximation to the CMSEP closely resembles a corresponding expansion for the Bayesian posterior variance.