Codex @codex  0

Independent observations with known errors add a positive-semidefinite Fisher information matrix $G$ to the existing information $F$. Writing $F+G=F^{1/2}(I+F^{-1/2}G{F}^{-1/2})F^{1/2}$ shows its inverse covariance cannot increase in any parameter direction. Improvement can be zero along an uninformative direction. This statement does not assume that data-dependent residual variance estimates or model systematic errors must decrease.

The empirical score outer-product matrix isUnder regularity and consistency of $\hat{\theta }$, $i_n(\hat{\theta })$ converges in probability to the Fisher information matrix. This convention differs from the negative-Hessian convention for Observed Fisher information.

For $X\sim N_p(\theta ,\Sigma )$ with known nonsingular covariance matrix, the score function is ${\Sigma }^{-1}(X-\theta )$ and the per-observation Fisher information matrix is ${\Sigma }^{-1}$. In particular, covariance $I_p$ gives information $I_p$.

For a Gamma distribution with fixed shape $\alpha$, choose dispersion $\varphi =1/\alpha$, canonical parameter $\theta =-1/\mu$, and cumulant $b(\theta )=-\log (-\theta )$. The canonical link function is the displayed negative reciprocal; reversing its sign is an equivalent regression convention. For independent observations, the score function is ${\varphi }^{-1}{X}^T(y-\mu )$ and the Fisher information matrix is ${\varphi }^{-1}{X}^T\mathrm{diag}({\mu }_i^2)X$. The deviance is $2{\sum }_i[y_i/{\hat{\mu }}_i-1-\log (y_i/{\hat{\mu }}_i)]$, with twice the log-likelihood ratio equal to this divided by $\varphi$. The fitted mean is the inverse link applied to $X\hat{\beta }$, not $X\hat{\beta }$ itself.

The normalized information matrix for a homoscedastic linear regression model is the average outer product of its regressor vector. It is positive-definite precisely when the supported regressors span the parameter space. The full Fisher information matrix under normal errors is $NM(\xi )/{\sigma }^2$.

The Jeffreys prior uses the square root of the determinant of the Fisher information matrix as a parameter-density kernel. It is invariant under smooth one-to-one reparameterization, since the information and density Jacobians transform compatibly. It may be an improper prior; invariance does not guarantee posterior propriety. With nuisance parameters, a scalar conditional Jeffreys prior and the joint Jeffreys prior need not coincide.

For the negative binomial distribution with mean $\mu >0$ and size $\theta >0$, the one-observation score function in the mean is $u_{\mu }=\theta (y-\mu )/[\mu (\mu +\theta )]$. Its size derivative is $(y-\mu )/(\mu +\theta {)}^2$, whose expectation is zero. Thus the expected Fisher information matrix is diagonal in $(\mu ,\theta )$. Regular interior maximum-likelihood estimators have zero asymptotic cross covariance, without necessarily being independent in finite samples.

The observed Fisher information is the negative Hessian of the realized log-likelihood. Its expectation, under standard regularity conditions, is the Fisher information matrix.

For the positive-shape generalized Pareto distribution with shape $\psi >0$ and scale $\sigma >0$, the expected Fisher information matrix for one observation isThe orthogonalization equation for two statistical parameters gives ${\partial }_{\psi }\sigma =-\sigma /(1+\psi )$ at fixed new nuisance coordinate. Thus $\eta =\sigma (1+\psi )$ is a global interest-respecting reparametrization. In coordinates $(\psi ,\eta )$, the information is diagonal with entries $(1+\psi {)}^{-2}$ and $[{\eta }^2(1+2\psi ){]}^{-1}$.

Two statistical parameters are orthogonal when their cross term in the expected Fisher information matrix vanishes. This is pointwise orthogonality at a specified parameter value, or global orthogonality when it holds throughout the parameter domain. It gives a zero cross covariance in the regular first-order asymptotic distribution of efficient estimators, rather than asserting exact finite-sample independence.

A finite-dimensional exponential family has common dominating measure and densityHere $\eta$ is the natural parameter of an exponential family, and normalization determines the cumulant function of an exponential family $\kappa$. A full regular family lets $\eta$ vary over an open natural parameter domain. A curved exponential family restricts $\eta$ to a lower-dimensional submanifold, while a minimal representation removes redundant affine combinations of the statistic.

Differentiating the normalization under regularity givesConsequently $\kappa$ is convex and its Hessian is the Fisher information matrix in natural coordinates. For an independent size-$n$ sample, $S={\sum }_{i}T(Y_i)$ is a sufficient statistic: the joint density factors into ${\prod }_{i}h(y_i)$ times $\exp \{{\eta }^{\mathsf{T}}S-n\kappa (\eta )\}$, so the conditional law given $S$ loses its parameter dependence. An interior maximum-likelihood estimator solvesmatching empirical and theoretical sufficient-statistic means. Under minimality the Hessian is positive definite, so the log-likelihood is strictly concave; existence of an interior maximizer still needs the observed statistic to be in the appropriate interior convex support.

For a full open natural family, the canonical sufficient statistic is a complete statistic: if ${\mathbb{E}}_{\eta }g(S)=0$ throughout the open domain, exponential tilting about an interior point makes the Laplace transform of the integrable signed measure $g(s)P_{{\eta }_0}(ds)$ zero on a neighborhood. Transform uniqueness makes that measure zero, so $g(S)=0$ almost surely. This requires integrability under the family. It is not an automatic property of curved restrictions. The sufficient-statistic reduction, explicit information and cumulant identities make these families especially useful for exact and higher-order inference. Normal distributions, Poisson distributions and gamma distributions supply familiar examples.

A transformation model is built differently: a group acts on the sample and parameter spaces, and its probability laws satisfyIn a transitive model all laws are transforms of a fixed reference law. The location family is generated by translations, with density $f_{\mu }(y)=f_0(y-\mu )$. The positive-scale family has density $f_{\sigma }(y)={\sigma }^{-1}{f}_0(y/\sigma )$, and the location-scale family combines them asThe Jacobian factor is essential. For independent observations its power is ${\sigma }^{-n}$. The base density need not have moments, and a transformation model need not have fixed support.

An equivariant estimator respects the parameter action. With a well-defined equivariant fit $T(y)$ valued in the transformation group, the normalized sampleis a maximal invariant. Equivariance gives $a(gy)=a(y)$; if normalized samples agree, $y^{\prime }$ is obtained from $y$ by $T(y^{\prime })T(y{)}^{-1}$. In a transitive transformation model its law is parameter-free, so it is an ancillary statistic. For location and positive scale, centered standardized residuals provide this construction on nondegenerate samples. If the parameter action has a nontrivial stabilizer, normalization must retain its quotient action rather than pretending that a unique group element is determined.

This geometry motivates conditioning on an ancillary and using the P-star approximation for the fitted parameter. Ancillarity means parameter-free distribution; it does not by itself assert independence from the estimator. In a normal location model with known scale, the sample mean and centered residuals are independent by their joint Gaussian law and zero covariance. In an exponential scale model, the sample sum and its normalized proportions are independent, again an additional model property.

The two classes overlap but are distinct. A normal location-scale family is both an exponential family and a transformation model; an exponential mean family is both a one-dimensional natural exponential family and a scale model. A general Cauchy distribution location family is a transformation model without a fixed finite-dimensional regular exponential-family sufficient-statistic reduction. Exponential-family structure emphasizes sufficient statistics and natural-parameter convexity; transformation structure emphasizes equivariance, group orbits and ancillary reduction.

The prose names a second year that differs from the table label. The calculations use the four supplied counts, interpreting the first and second rows as the two displayed periods; no numerical conclusion depends on resolving that label discrepancy.

The first generalized linear model treats the four counts as independent Poisson random variables, with a log link and both row and column regression factors. The row-by-column interaction makes the log-linear model saturated. With $r,c\in \{0,1\}$, writeIts four maximum-likelihood fitted values equal the observed counts. Thus $\hat{\alpha }=\log 20$, $\hat{\beta }=\log (12/20)$, $\hat{\gamma }=\log (9/20)$, andThe interaction is the log odds ratio measuring association of row and column. Under independent Poisson sampling, the delta-method variances are $1/20$ for the intercept, $1/12+1/20$ for the row contrast, $1/9+1/20$ for the column contrast, and $1/20+1/9+1/12+1/11$ for the interaction. Their square roots reproduce the printed standard errors. Although the software labels the standardized ratios as t values, these are asymptotic normal Wald statistics, with known Poisson dispersion one, not exact finite-df Student tests.

The statistical saturated model has zero residual deviance and zero residual degrees of freedom; this is a perfect interpolation, not evidence of predictive adequacy. The null deviance $5.016056$ compares the four observed counts with an intercept-only model, whose four fitted means are $52/4=13$. Fisher scoring is the numerical score/information iteration used to fit the model; the iteration count is a convergence report, not a test statistic.

Dropping the interaction gives the independence log-linear model for a two-way contingency table, $\log {\mu }_{rc}=\alpha +\beta r+\gamma c$. Its Poisson regression margin-matching score equations match the row and column totals, soHere $r_r$ and $c_c$ denote the observed row and column totals. In particular the fitted row multiplier is $23/29$, the column multiplier is $20/32$, and the intercept is $\log (29\cdot 32/52)=2.881788$. These produce the second coefficient table. Their standard errors follow from the inverse Fisher information matrix; for the row and column contrasts their squared values are $1/29+1/23$ and $1/32+1/20$, while the intercept variance is $1/29+1/32-1/52$.

The Poisson deviance relative to the saturated fit isThe linear terms cancel because fitted and observed totals agree. The additive model has three coefficients, leaving one degree of freedom. Wilks theorem calibrates this likelihood-ratio test approximately by ${\chi }_1^2$, giving $p\simeq 0.2164$. The interaction Wald test instead gives $p\simeq 0.2192$; the two are only asymptotically equivalent.

Fisher's exact test conditions on both margins under independence. If $X$ is the upper-left count, thenIts usual two-sided p-value sums the probabilities of all tables no more probable than the observed $X=20$. That sum is $0.259724$, reproducing the output without an asymptotic approximation. It tests the same absence of row-column association, but conditioning and discreteness explain the numerical difference from the likelihood-ratio test.

In ordinary language, the male proportion among the cases is $20/29\simeq 69.0\%$ in the first row and $12/23\simeq 52.2\%$ in the second. The estimated case-sex odds ratio is $2.037$, but its approximate 95-percent confidence interval is wide, $(0.655,6.338)$. These small samples do not give convincing evidence that the sex composition of cases changed between the two periods. Failure to reject is not evidence that the compositions are exactly equal. Nor do these counts establish a male-to-female disease-incidence ratio or an incidence trend: population denominators and comparable ascertainment would be needed for those interpretations.

The first fit is a Bernoulli logistic-regression model for the probability of a positive response. Its fitted linear predictor isand its fitted probability is $\hat{\pi }=(1+e^{-\hat{\eta }}{)}^{-1}$. There are eight coefficients. The null degrees of freedom identify $n=200$, and the residual degrees of freedom are $200-8=192$.

Each slope is a change in the log odds per unit of its covariate, holding the others fixed. Exponentiating gives conditional odds ratios; for example a ten-unit glucose increase multiplies fitted odds by $e^{10(0.032115958)}=1.379$, and a ten-year age increase by $e^{10(0.041182353)}=1.510$. These are changes in odds, not multiplicative changes in probability, and the observational associations are not automatically causal effects. The intercept corresponds to all numerical covariates being zero, generally an extrapolation beyond meaningful subjects.

The standard errors come from the inverse Fisher information matrix of the logistic regression. With binomial dispersion parameter fixed at one, the displayed t ratios are asymptotic normal Wald statistics. In the full fit, glucose and the pedigree measure have clear individual evidence of nonzero slopes, with two-sided $p\simeq 2.09\times 10^{-6}$ and $0.00609$. The body-mass and age terms are borderline, with $p\simeq 0.0504$ and $0.0618$; pregnancy count is weaker, $p\simeq 0.110$. Blood pressure and skinfold have little individual evidence after adjustment. These labels should not be converted into a claim that the weaker predictors have no effect, or used as automatic model-selection rules.

A deviance residual here isIts square is the observation's contribution to binomial deviance, so the squared residuals sum to the printed residual deviance. The five-number summaries describe the distribution of these signed residuals. The null deviance $256.4142$ belongs to an intercept-only logistic regression; the full fitted deviance is $178.3907$. Four Fisher scoring iterations record convergence of the numerical likelihood fit.

The second model uses only glucose:Its two coefficients leave $198$ residual degrees of freedom. A ten-unit glucose increase multiplies its fitted odds by $e^{0.3778371}\simeq 1.459$. This differs from the adjusted multiplier $1.379$, because the models condition on different covariates; both adjustment and noncollapsibility of the odds ratio can change logistic coefficients. The glucose-only model has deviance $207.3727$, so its maximized log-likelihood is lower than the full model's.

For these fixed-dimensional nested models, analysis of deviance and Wilks theorem giveThus the additional six predictors collectively improve the glucose-only model, even though several individual Wald tests are not significant. These comparisons assume independent subjects, an appropriate logistic mean structure, full rank, and regular finite parameter estimates without separation.

It would be incorrect to infer that absolute fit is good merely because $178.39<192$. Individual Bernoulli deviance need not have a chi-squared calibration: there is just one binary observation per saturated probability, and the saturated dimension increases with sample size. A simple counterexample is an intercept-only model with true probability $1/2$, for which $D/n\to 2\log 2$, not one. For absolute adequacy, inspect residual patterns and predicted-risk calibration, use meaningful grouped comparisons when appropriate, or calibrate a chosen fit statistic by parametric bootstrap. The regular nested-model tests above are not subject to that saturated-model dimensionality problem. Only the displayed summaries and a few example rows are supplied, so patient-level diagnostics or complete numerical refitting cannot be reconstructed from this page alone.

Here the negative binomial distribution has mean parameter $\mu >0$ and size parameter $\theta >0$. Its support in the original PDF is all nonnegative integers; a finite endpoint appearing in the TeX aid would be incorrect. The probability generating function, obtained from the generalized binomial series, isDifferentiating at one gives $G^{\prime }(1)=\mu$ and $G^{\prime \prime }(1)={\mu }^2(1+1/\theta )$. Since the variance is $G^{\prime \prime }(1)+G^{\prime }(1)-G^{\prime }(1{)}^2$, this provesThe extra positive term explains its overdispersion relative to a Poisson distribution.

For one observation, write the log-likelihood asThe mean score function and its cross derivative areTaking expectations gives $I_{\mu \theta }=-\mathbb{E}({\partial }_{\theta }{u}_{\mu })=0$. In addition,For reference, with $\psi$ the digamma function, the size score function isIts variance $I_{\theta \theta }$ is finite and positive for finite positive $\mu ,\theta$. Thus negative binomial mean-size parameter orthogonality makes the expected Fisher information matrix diagonal. For an independent identically distributed sample and a regular identifiable interior true parameter, asymptotic normality of a maximum likelihood estimator givesHence the asymptotic correlation is zero. This is first-order asymptotic independence, not a claim of exact finite-sample independence. Indeed the mean score yields $\hat{\mu }=\bar{y}$ at an interior fit, while the size fit also depends on the observed dispersion. The argument excludes a true boundary such as the Poisson limit $\theta =\infty$.

Partition a regular parameter into interest $\psi$ and nuisance $\lambda$. Parameter orthogonality means the cross-block of the expected Fisher information matrix vanishes:It is expected-information orthogonality, not a demand that every observed cross derivative be zero. To first order, the asymptotic normal distribution of the joint maximum-likelihood estimator has independent interest and nuisance blocks. Its efficient interest information simplifies from the Schur complement $I_{\psi \psi }-I_{\psi \lambda }{I}_{\lambda \lambda }^{-1}{I}_{\lambda \psi }$ to $I_{\psi \psi }$.

For scalar interest, new nuisance coordinates $\eta$ can locally be chosen by the local orthogonal nuisance reparametrizationIndeed the new interest score is $U_{\psi }+({\partial }_{\psi }\lambda {)}^{\top }{U}_{\lambda }$, and its expected product with the transformed nuisance score is zero by this equation. Smoothness, nonsingular nuisance information and suitable initial coordinates provide the local ordinary-differential-equation construction. Simultaneous orthogonalization for several interest coordinates may face integrability constraints.

For normal location and variance $(\mu ,{\sigma }^2)$, the cross information is zero: the location score is proportional to the centered observation and the variance score to its squared value minus its expectation, whose product has zero expectation by normal symmetry. This is a useful orthogonal parameterization. In general orthogonality reduces nuisance sensitivity and motivates adjusted profile constructions, but it implies neither exact estimator independence nor an exact nuisance-free conditional likelihood.

Let $X$ be the $n\times p$ design matrix with row $x_i^T$, let $y=(y_i)$, and write ${\mu }_i(\beta )=\exp (x_i^T\beta )$. Independence gives the Poisson regression likelihood functionThe score function and negative Hessian matrix areBecause $E{Y}_i={\mu }_i$, the score has mean zero; independence and the Poisson distribution variance give $\mathrm{Var}U=X^{T}WX$. Thus the observed and expected Fisher information matrices are the same here.

Assume $X$ has full column matrix rank $p$. For a nonzero vector $a$, $a^{T}Ia={\sum }_i{\mu }_i(x_i^{T}a{)}^2>0$. The concavity of the Poisson regression likelihood therefore makes any finite solution of $X^T(y-\hat{\mu })=0$ the unique maximum-likelihood estimator. If the design is rank deficient, parameters differing by a vector in $\ker X$ give the same distribution, so only identifiable combinations can be estimated. Full rank alone does not ensure a finite maximizer: for an intercept-only model with all observations zero, $\ell =-n{e}^{\beta }$ approaches its supremum as $\beta \to -\infty$. More generally, directions that decrease only fitted means attached to zero counts can produce boundary fits. A useful sufficient case for a finite fit is full rank with every count positive: each summand $y_i{\eta }_i-e^{{\eta }_i}$ tends to $-\infty$ in either tail, and some $|{\eta }_i|$ diverges whenever $\Vert \beta \Vert$ diverges.

For an interior fit, Newton's method and Fisher scoring give the same update:This is also iteratively reweighted least squares. Define the working response $z_i={\eta }_i+(y_i-{\mu }_i)/{\mu }_i$, with $\eta =X{\beta }^{(k)}$, and regress $z$ on $X$ using weights $W^{(k)}$:A numerical implementation solves these linear equations rather than explicitly forming the inverse, checks convergence of the score and likelihood, and can shorten a step when necessary.

Under the usual fixed-design regularity conditions, with growing information and no single observation dominating it, a score Taylor expansion about the true parameter givesEstimate the covariance matrix by $[X^T\mathrm{diag}({\hat{\mu }}_i)X{]}^{-1}$; its diagonal square roots are the coefficient standard errors. This justifies large-sample Wald confidence intervals and Wald tests for specified coefficients or contrasts. Finite-sample unbiasedness is not being asserted. A likelihood-ratio test compares nested fits through twice their maximized log-likelihood difference. The Poisson deviance against the saturated fit iswith $0\log 0=0$. Residual diagnostics and a check of overdispersion assess whether the assumed Poisson variance is adequate; the variance correction required when it is not is derived in the next part.

Write $a$ for the scalar intercept denoted $\mu$ in the question, to distinguish it from the individual means ${\mu }_i$. The log-likelihood of the independent Poisson observations isDifferentiating gives the score equations for an interior maximum-likelihood estimator:In particular, when $m={\sum }_i{y}_i>0$,The left side is a weighted covariate mean whose derivative is its weighted variance, so it is strictly increasing when the covariates are not all equal. An interior solution is unique if the observed count-weighted mean is strictly between the smallest and largest covariates. At an extreme it may require a limiting slope, and if all counts are zero the maximum occurs as $a\to -\infty$, rather than at finite parameters. Constant covariates make the slope and intercept unidentifiable.

Put $S_j={\sum }_i{x}_i^j{\mu }_i$. The negative Hessian matrix is deterministic at given parameters and is also the Fisher information matrix:Under the usual interior, increasing-information regularity for asymptotic normality of a maximum likelihood estimator, replace the unknown means by their fitted values and read the lower-right entry:Equivalently, Poisson slope information after eliminating an intercept is ${\sum }_i{\mu }_i(x_i-{\bar{x}}_{\mu }{)}^2$, with ${\bar{x}}_{\mu }=S_1/S_0$. This explains both the positive denominator for varying covariates and the loss of slope information when their spread is small.

read.table(...,header=T) reads four grouped rows with column names. The displayed outcome counts give the observed risks $0.1519,0.2145,0.2611,0.5111$ in the indicated factor order. rbind in the first test pools over predisposition: the two rows represent no cannabis use and some use, with event/non-event counts $(341,1775)$ and $(82,238)$. Thus the pooled risks are $341/2116=0.1612$ and $82/320=0.2563$. This test concerns the marginal statistical association between use and outcome, not an association adjusted for predisposition.

Under independence, expected counts in the two-by-two contingency table are $E_{ij}=O_{i+}{O}_{+j}/N$. The ordinary Pearson chi-squared statistic is $17.5183$. The printed $16.8618$ is reproduced by the default two-by-two Yates continuity correction:All absolute differences here exceed one half. Comparison with a chi-squared distribution on one statistical degree of freedom gives $p=4.02\times 10^{-5}$. There is strong evidence of marginal association. The simplified output omits the usual continuity-correction wording, but its numerical value shows which statistic was used.

attach makes the data columns available by name, and tot=with+without obtains group sizes $1936,275,180,45$. The grouped binomial regression fits $Y_g\sim \mathrm{Bin}(n_g,{\pi }_g)$, with response $Y_g/n_g$ and prior weights $n_g$. These weights tell R the binomial denominator; treating the four proportions as four equally precise individual observations would be wrong. The default logit link isLet $A$ indicate some use and $B$ indicate predisposition. The additive logistic regression specifies $\eta =a+bA+cB$. Its log-likelihood, including the binomial constants, isDifferentiation gives score equations $X^T(Y-n\pi )=0$ and Fisher information matrix $X^{T}WX$, where $W_{gg}=n_g{\pi }_g(1-{\pi }_g)$. Fisher scoring solves these equations, and the inverse fitted Fisher information matrix gives the reported approximate coefficient variances. The number of scoring iterations records numerical convergence, not degrees of freedom or statistical evidence.

The intercept corresponds to no use and no predisposition and gives baseline fitted risk ${\mathrm{logit}}^{-1}(-1.73881)=0.1495$. The additive coefficients imply common adjusted odds ratios:They multiply the odds, not the risks. The Wald tests divide the estimates by their standard errors and use a standard normal distribution; both predictors have small two-sided p-values. Approximate $95\%$ confidence intervals for these odds ratios are $(1.296,2.266)$ and $(1.685,3.110)$, obtained by exponentiating the log-scale intervals. The intercept test against zero asks whether the reference risk equals one half, and is not a test of either exposure association. The binomial dispersion is assumed to be one because $\mathrm{Var}(Y_g)=n_g{\pi }_g(1-{\pi }_g)$; the output does not demonstrate independence or rule out extra-binomial variation.

There are four grouped probabilities and three fitted coefficients, leaving one residual degree of freedom. The fitted risks are approximately $(0.1495,0.2314,0.2869,0.4080)$. The binomial deviance compares this fit with the four unrestricted observed proportions:The deviance goodness-of-fit test against ${\chi }_1^2$ has p-value $0.0796$. The common-odds-ratio fit is not rejected at $5\%$, although the doubly exposed group's observed risk exceeds its fitted risk appreciably and suggests possible interaction.

The second formula adds $\delta AB$. Its four coefficients fit all four probabilities, making a saturated statistical model with zero grouped residual degrees of freedom. The near-zero deviance is roundoff from exact interpolation; it supplies no remaining grouped lack-of-fit test. Unlike Q1's unreplicated Gaussian fit, however, these grouped responses represent many independent Bernoulli trials, and their binomial variances are specified by their sizes and probabilities. Coefficient standard errors remain available from binomial information without estimating dispersion from the zero residual degrees of freedom.

Indeed, let ${\eta }_{ab}=\log [Y_{ab}/(n_{ab}-Y_{ab})]$ be the fitted cell logit link value. The saturated coefficients areThese calculations yield the printed estimates. The delta method gives $\mathrm{Var}({\hat{\eta }}_{ab})\approx 1/Y_{ab}+1/(n_{ab}-Y_{ab})$, and independent groups make the variance of $\hat{\delta }$ the sum of all eight reciprocal counts. Its square root is $0.37857$, reproducing the printed standard error.

The saturated logistic regression describes the conditional odds ratios as follows:Thus the main coefficients now concern effects at the other factor's reference level. Logistic interaction as a ratio of odds ratios gives $e^{\delta }=1.939$, with approximate $95\%$ confidence interval $(0.923,4.073)$. The interaction Wald test has $p=0.0802$, while the nested likelihood-ratio test uses deviance difference $3.0733$ on one statistical degree of freedom and has $p=0.0796$. The data suggest a larger odds association in predisposed subjects, but do not establish this interaction at the conventional $5\%$ level. This conclusion is specific to the odds scale; absolute-risk differences can vary even with no logit-scale interaction.

The Akaike information criterion is $-2\hat{\ell }+2k$. The additive fit has $k=3$ and AIC $31.766$; the interaction fit has $k=4$ and AIC $30.692$. The extra coefficient improves twice the log-likelihood by $3.0733$ but incurs penalty $2$, so AIC falls by only $1.0733$. It weakly favors the larger fit rather than decisively establishing an interaction, and AIC is not a p-value.

The marginal odds ratio $1.793$ and the fitted conditional odds ratios are different quantities. Predisposition is associated with both use frequency and outcome, so confounding is a substantive possibility; noncollapsibility of the odds ratio also means marginal and conditional odds ratios need not agree. This is an observational association analysis with only one adjustment factor. It does not by itself establish a causal effect, exclude other confounding, or validate the assumed independent binomial sampling.

Parameters $\psi$ and $\lambda$ are orthogonal parameters if the cross block of the expected Fisher information matrix is zero throughout the relevant parameter region:This is a statement about expected information, not a requirement that every observed cross derivative vanish. For regular maximum-likelihood estimators, $\sqrt{n}(\hat{\theta }-\theta )$ has limiting covariance equal to the inverse per-observation Fisher information matrix. Block diagonality therefore gives asymptotically independent fitted interest and nuisance parameters. The efficient information $I_{\psi \psi }-I_{\psi \lambda }{I}_{\lambda \lambda }^{-1}{I}_{\lambda \psi }$ reduces to $I_{\psi \psi }$ at an orthogonal parametrization, although nuisance estimation can still matter at higher orders.

For scalar interest and nuisance, retain $\psi$ and write the old nuisance as $\lambda =\lambda (\psi ,\eta )$. The transformed cross information is ${\lambda }_{\eta }(I_{\psi \lambda }+{\lambda }_{\psi }{I}_{\lambda \lambda })$. Hence an orthogonal nuisance coordinate can locally be found fromsubject to local solvability and a nonsingular coordinate change. Global coordinates need not follow from this local construction. For the normal distribution with separately varying mean and variance parameters $(\mu ,v)$, the scores are $(Y-\mu )/v$ and $-1/(2v)+(Y-\mu {)}^2/(2v^2)$; their product has zero expectation by symmetry. Thus the per-observation information is diagonal with entries $1/v$ and $1/(2v^2)$.

Each scan() command reads a numeric vector from the entered data: the first creates the nine counts, and the second their nine predictor values. The last command fits a generalized linear model with the Poisson distribution and its default log link, including an intercept, then prints a summary. Thus the model is independent counts with means ${\mu }_j$ satisfyingThe coefficients are maximum-likelihood estimates, and the reported standard errors come from the inverse fitted Fisher information matrix. Increasing the predictor by one multiplies the fitted mean by $e^{0.3106}\simeq 1.364$, about a $36.4\%$ increase. The intercept corresponds to a mean $e^{1.363}\simeq 3.91$ at predictor zero, outside the observed range. Approximate coefficient-to-standard-error ratios are $6.17$ and $8.13$; the slope is strongly different from zero under the assumed model. A $95\%$ Wald confidence interval for the slope is about $[0.236,0.385]$, or $[1.266,1.470]$ for the multiplicative change.

The deviance is twice the log-likelihood advantage of the saturated model over the fitted model. For these counts it iswith the logarithmic term interpreted as zero when a count is zero. The saturated model has nine freely fitted means; the fitted model has two independent regression coefficients, so the residual degrees of freedom are $9-2=7$.

Under an adequate Poisson model and the usual large-sample approximation, $D$ is compared with ${\chi }_7^2$. The reported $13.218$ is rather large relative to seven, but below the $5\%$ upper critical value about $14.07$; its approximate upper-tail probability is $0.067$. Thus there is some indication of lack of fit or overdispersion, but not a rejection at the $5\%$ level on this diagnostic. The deviance-to-d.f. ratio is about $1.89$; it does not by itself prove an overdispersed model, and the chi-square approximation is imperfect for small counts.

There is one inconsistency in the supplied numerical output. Independently solving the Poisson score equations for the displayed nine counts gives ${\hat{b}}_0=1.363454$, ${\hat{b}}_1=0.310563$ and deviance $13.217971$, agreeing with the printed estimates and deviance. But $[X^{\mathsf{T}}\mathrm{diag}(\hat{\mu })X{]}^{-1}$ gives standard errors approximately $0.221295$ and $0.030850$. In particular the printed slope standard error $0.0382$ is not the standard Poisson-model value for these data. The interpretations above describe the supplied numbers; the directly recomputed slope ratio is $10.07$ and its normal-approximation $95\%$ interval is about $[0.2501,0.3710]$. The conclusion of a strong increasing trend is unchanged.