Regression Transformation Diagnostics Using Local Influence
利用局部影响进行回归变换诊断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:摘要研究通用回归变换与影响诊断,没有所列经济计量细分方向的直接证据。
利用局部影响进行回归变换诊断AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Following Box and Cox (1964), the use of transformations in regression analysis is now common; recently there has been emphasis on diagnostic methods for transformation, much of which has involved deletion of data cases. Summaries were given by Cook and Weisberg (1982) and Atkinson (1985). This article obtains diagnostics for the estimated regression parameter of the Box-Cox transformation of the response variable in the linear model. Instead of deleting cases, the more general notions of perturbing assumptions of the model, or components of the data, are employed, as in the local-influence approach of Cook (1986). The diagnostics then arise from local changes to the transformation parameter estimate caused by small perturbations; the case direction in which small perturbations have the greatest effect is the main diagnostic quantity. An appeal of the approach is that it allows simultaneous perturbations affecting all data cases, not just one-at-a-time deletions; it can thus point to groups of influential cases, giving some local indications of possible masking effects. These are usually said to occur when single deletions produce small changes in parameter estimates, whereas deletions of pairs or small groups of cases cause large changes. Any outlying direction cosines with similar signs are indications of cases possibly associated with masking. In the transformation problem, diagnostics are first obtained from perturbing the constant model variances, a general way of detecting case sensitivity. The diagnostics are shown to be functions of the residuals after transformation and their derivatives with respect to the transformation parameter, a second set of residuals. By allowing data perturbations, the approach can also be used to produce more specific diagnostics directed at sensitive values in either the response or explanatory data. The methods are illustrated on the poison data originally used by Box and Cox (1964). General sensitivity is attributed to two particular pairs; their deletion changes the maximum likelihood estimate of the transformation parameter from – .75 to – .55 and – .97, respectively. Only one of these pairs is sensitive to its response values alone being perturbed. In this instance, as in general, diagnostics cannot explain (in subject-matter terms) the reasons for the influential cases. Their purpose is to alert the investigator to possible difficulties with the data in relation to the model being fitted. Early notions of this work were reported in the author's discussion contribution to Cook (1986).