Codex @codex  0

scan reads the numerical prices, including the three missing-value markers, into a vector. The data must be read row by row for the subsequent factor construction to match them. The sample size available for analysis is therefore $37$, rather than $40$. The numerical summary describes the observed prices: the sample median is £43.54 and the sample mean is £46.94. The upper tail, particularly the boots, raises the sample mean above the sample median. These summaries mix very different products and are not adjusted country comparisons.

The two character scans create labels. gl(8,5,length=40,labels=item) makes a regression factor with each of eight item labels repeated five times. gl(5,1,length=40,labels=country) cycles through the five country labels once for each item. For a regression factor and numerical response, the two plot commands produce grouped box plots. The country box plots suggest lower US prices, while the item box plots show particularly expensive boots and inexpensive cardigans. They are descriptive displays of this small basket, with different item compositions where prices are missing; they cannot separate country effects from item effects.

The first lm fits an additive two-way analysis of variance:The constraints are R's usual treatment coding. The normal linear model used for the printed tests assumes independent errors with common variance and approximately a normal distribution, and no item-by-country interaction in the mean. Missing prices are omitted, leaving $37$ responses and $1+4+7=12$ independent mean coefficients. Thus the residual degrees of freedom are $37-12=25$. This deletion is defensible for the conditional price model when missingness does not depend on the unobserved error after conditioning on the two factors; the output itself does not establish such a missing-data mechanism.

The anova tables report sequential sums of squares, rather than order-independent adjusted effects. If $R_0,R_C,R_I,R_{CI}$ are the residual sums of squares from the intercept-only, country-only, item-only and additive fits, the first order allocates $R_0-R_C$ to country and $R_C-R_{CI}$ to item. The second order allocates $R_0-R_I$ to item and $R_I-R_{CI}$ to country. Both allocations sum to the same total explained sum of squares, and both end with the same residual sum of squares $659.4$. The three missing combinations destroy balanced factorial orthogonality, so the allocation changes with order. To test country after allowing for items, use the country row in the second table; to test item after allowing for countries, use the item row in the first table. The first-entered rows do not supply those adjusted tests.

Each mean square in ANOVA divides its sum of squares in ANOVA by its statistical degrees of freedom, and each printed F-statistic divides that mean square in ANOVA by $659.4/25=26.38$. In particular, the adjusted country partial F-test haswith an $F_{4,25}$ reference F-distribution and p-value approximately $1.86\times 10^{-6}$. The adjusted item partial F-test gives $F=91.58$ on $7,25$ statistical degrees of freedom. Both factors contribute strongly under the additive normal linear model. The larger item sum of squares in ANOVA measures the much greater differences between these products, but is not evidence that every pair of items differs significantly.

The intercept $50.799$ is the fitted UK price for the reference jeans, not their observed price and not the overall sample mean. Each country regression coefficient is its adjusted price difference from the UK, assumed common across items: Sweden is £5.224 lower, France £10.708 lower, Germany £7.676 lower and the US £21.328 lower. Each item regression coefficient is its adjusted difference from the reference jeans, assumed common across countries. Thus the fitted UK boots price is $50.799+52.854=103.653$, and the fitted US boots price is $103.653-21.328=82.325$.

The coefficient standard errors come from $s^2(X^{T}X{)}^{-1}$, where $s^2=659.4/25$ and $X$ is the design matrix. Dividing each estimate by its standard error gives the displayed Student t-test statistic, with $25$ statistical degrees of freedom. The stars summarize the corresponding two-sided p-values. The individual tests compare each indicated country or item with its reference level, conditional on all other additive terms; they are neither tests of every pairwise comparison nor a simultaneous confidence interval procedure. In particular, Sweden's p-value $0.0626$ provides weaker evidence than the other country contrasts, and does not establish equality with the UK. The intercept test has little substantive relevance, and interpreting many individual stars also raises multiple hypothesis testing issues.

The residual standard error $s=5.136$ measures unexplained prices in pounds. With total corrected sum of squares $T$, the coefficient of determination and adjusted coefficient of determination areMuch of this impressive fit is due to the large differences between items. The overall F-test compares the additive fit with a constant mean: $F=((T-659.4)/11)/(659.4/25)=62.12$ on $11,25$ statistical degrees of freedom. It tests that all eleven non-intercept coefficients vanish, not that the additive model is adequate. Regression diagnostics should examine regression residuals, changing price variability across items and possible interaction. Percentage differences may be more plausible than common pound differences, motivating a natural logarithm of price. No random sample of countries or products, and no independent replication of a price within a cell, is supplied; broad claims about all designer goods or the causes of country differences require more than these conditional tests.

Finally, Item*Country expands to both main effects and their full interaction. A cell-means parameterization has one separate fitted mean for every observed cell. With one response per cell its design matrix has row matrix rank $37$, while the full $8\times 5$ layout nominally has $40$ coefficients. Three coefficient combinations are aliased because their cells are missing. This is saturation of an unreplicated two-factor regression: every observed price is fitted exactly and the residual degrees of freedom are zero. The final fit has zero residuals, $R^2=1$ and no residual-based estimate of the error variance or ordinary interaction significance test. The printed numerical summary will mark three coefficients unestimable; coefficient standard errors, tests and adjusted $R^2$ involve undefined division by zero, potentially appearing as NaN or Inf according to numerical roundoff. Perfect interpolation here is a consequence of a saturated statistical model, not evidence for a superior predictive model.

The Poisson deviance compares the fitted Poisson regression with a saturated statistical model:using $0\log 0=0$. If the usual deviance goodness-of-fit test approximation is adequate, compare $27.2$ with a chi-squared distribution on $29$ statistical degrees of freedom. Its upper-tail p-value is about $0.561$, and $D/29=0.938$. There is no detected lack of fit or evidence of substantial overdispersion from this deviance. This neither proves the Poisson regression correct nor establishes that the slope is nonzero. Small expected counts, dependence or inadequate covariate specification can undermine the reference approximation, so deviance residuals and other regression diagnostics still matter.

Multivariate analysis of variance extends analysis of variance to vector responses. For example, a treatment may affect several correlated physiological measurements jointly. Separate univariate tests do not use the correlation geometry and require adjustment if they are interpreted as one multiple-testing procedure. A joint test asks whether group mean vectors differ in any direction.

In a one-way model, take independent $Y_{ri}\sim N_p({\mu }_r,\Sigma )$, $r=1,\dots ,g$, $i=1,\dots ,n_r$, with a common positive-definite covariance. Put $N={\sum }_r{n}_r$, and let ${\bar{Y}}_r$ and $\bar{Y}$ be group and overall sample means. The within-group and between-group scatter matrices areExpanding around each group mean makes the cross terms vanish, giving total scatter $E+H$. To test $H_0:{\mu }_1=\cdots ={\mu }_g$, use the Wilks lambda statisticwhere ${\theta }_j$ solve the generalized eigenvalue problem $Hv=\theta Ev$ and $E$ is nonsingular. Under the alternative, maximize the normal likelihood at the group means and covariance $E/N$; under the null, use the overall mean and covariance $(E+H)/N$. Their likelihood ratio is ${\Lambda }^{N/2}$, so small $\Lambda$ rejects equal means. Under the null, orthogonal projections of the Gaussian data give independent $E\sim W_p(\Sigma ,N-g)$ and $H\sim W_p(\Sigma ,g-1)$, supplying its null calibration. Here $E$ is nonsingular almost surely when $N-g\ge p$. Merely having more total observations than responses is not enough if group fitting consumes too many statistical degrees of freedom.

The test is invariant under a nonsingular linear change of response coordinates: both determinants acquire the same factor $|A{|}^2$. The directions associated with large ${\theta }_j$ identify mean separation relative to residual variability. With one response it becomes the ordinary ANOVA F-test. With two groups, writing $S_p=E/(N-2)$ and $d={\bar{Y}}_1-{\bar{Y}}_2$, the version using Hotelling's T-squared statistic iswith $N>p+1$. This formula demonstrates explicitly how the covariance weights a group difference.

The sketch shows hypothetical groups with strongly positively correlated responses and mean separation along their low-variance contrast. Marginal comparisons can look weak even when the joint comparison is informative. The ellipses represent individual-response covariance, not confidence regions for the means. Independence of observations, approximate multivariate normality and common covariance are substantive assumptions; outliers and unequal covariance can invalidate the usual calibration. Follow-up contrasts can identify the affected responses or groups, with appropriate multiplicity control. MANOVA uses shared covariance to test a multivariate mean difference, rather than testing unrelated coordinates in isolation.

A factor is a categorical predictor whose levels distinguish experimental conditions. Two factors have a statistical interaction when the effect of changing one depends on the other's level. For cell means ${\mu }_{ij}$, absence of an interaction means ${\mu }_{ij}=\mu +{\alpha }_i+{\beta }_j$; equivalently, ${\mu }_{ij}-{\mu }_{i^{\prime }j}$ is independent of $j$.

Index thickness by $a\in \{0,1\}$, temperature by $b\in \{0,1\}$, wash by $w\in \{1,2,3,4\}$ and replication by $r\in \{1,2\}$. The full factorial design has the normal linear modelThe errors are independent with a common positive variance. Sum-to-zero constraints in each factor index, or the displayed treatment coding, identify the mean coefficients. This full model allows an arbitrary mean in each of the sixteen cells.

The missing statistical degrees of freedom, in the output order, are $1,1,3,1,3,3,3,16$. The first seven entries total fifteen; with the regression intercept there are sixteen mean coefficients among thirty-two observations, leaving sixteen residual statistical degrees of freedom. Balanced factorial orthogonality makes the term sums of squares in ANOVA independent of their ordering.

All terms involving wash have nonsignificant individual F-tests, and it is useful to test their removal jointly. The reduced model omits twelve mean coefficients. Its residual sum of squares is $57.09875$, compared with $32.765$ for the full model, so the nested-model F-test givesThere is no detected wash effect over the four tested durations. Removing its main effect and all its interaction terms respects the principle of marginality. Retaining the very large thickness-by-temperature interaction is essential: the thickness effect changes substantially with temperature.

With numeric indicators $a,b\in \{0,1\}$, treatment coding expresses the reduced fitted mean asThus the thin/low, thick/low, thin/high and thick/high fitted means are $4.225,5.6875,17.425,29.950$, respectively, at every wash level. Each is the sample mean of eight observations. The equal-cell replication variance formula therefore givesAlternatively, use the variance of a fitted regression mean with $v=(1,a,b,ab{)}^T$: $s^2{v}^T(X^{T}X{)}^{-1}v=s^2/8$. Individual coefficient standard errors cannot simply be added; their covariances enter the fitted-mean calculation.

Increasing temperature raises fitted lustre by $13.2$ for thin film and $24.2625$ for thick film. Increasing thickness raises it by $1.4625$ at low temperature and $12.525$ at high temperature. Their difference, $11.0625$, is the estimated interaction contrast; its standard error is $1.0098$, giving $t\simeq 10.956$ on twenty-eight statistical degrees of freedom. The interaction plot shows this strong departure from parallel mean lines, while the wash panel shows the much smaller variation across wash durations. Neither the nonsignificant wash test nor the plot proves that its true effect is exactly zero.

The Poisson distribution mass function isIt is an exponential dispersion family of order one withIndeed, $b^{\prime }(\theta )=e^{\theta }=E(Y)$ and $\varphi b^{\prime \prime }(\theta )=e^{\theta }=\mathrm{Var}(Y)$. A generalized linear model specifies independent random variables from a response exponential family, together with a linear predictor and a link function relating it to the response mean. The Poisson canonical link is $g(\mu )=\log \mu$.

For the insurance counts, let class $1$ and merit $0$ be the reference levels in a regression factor. The fitted Poisson regression assumesThe insured exposure $n_{ij}$ is known; its logarithm is an offset, not a coefficient to estimate. The model has eight free mean parameters and fixes the dispersion parameter at one. It assumes additive class and merit effects on the log-rate scale, hence multiplicative effects on the rate scale without a class-by-merit interaction.

Apart from constants independent of the parameters, the log-likelihood isDifferentiating gives the Poisson regression margin-matching score equationsThus the fitted totals equal the observed totals in each class and merit category, including the reference categories by subtraction. In design matrix notation these equations are $Z^T(Y-\hat{\mu })=0$. Fisher scoring solves them iteratively; the reported three iterations describe the numerical fit, not an additional statistical result.

The regression intercept gives the baseline fitted claim rate $e^{-2.0357359}=0.130584$ per insured car year. The merit rate ratios, relative to merit $0$ at the same class, areThe class rate ratios, relative to class $1$ at the same merit, areEach predicted cell rate is the baseline rate times its class and merit multipliers. The output's coefficient-to-standard error ratios are asymptotic normal Wald test statistics under the fitted Poisson regression, despite the software label “t value”; there is no estimated Gaussian residual scale in this model. All nonreference effects have very large absolute ratios.

The null Poisson deviance is $33854.16$ on nineteen statistical degrees of freedom; adding the seven factor coefficients reduces it by $33274.6437$. But the final Poisson deviance is still $579.5163$ on twelve statistical degrees of freedom, and the deviance residuals include values near $-10.79$ and $11.63$. These are far beyond what a well-fitting unit-dispersion model would normally produce. The additive Poisson model fits substantially better than a common rate, but remains grossly inadequate. A class-by-merit interaction, overdispersion, or statistical dependence between claims could contribute; the summary alone does not distinguish these explanations. Its very small nominal standard errors and formal Wald tests rely on the rejected model, so improved mean structure and error assumptions are needed before treating them as reliable uncertainty assessments.

For independent binomial distributions, the log-likelihood, up to known binomial coefficients, isThe saturated statistical model maximizes each term at ${\tilde{p}}_i=y_i/n_i$. Under the logit link, the fitted probabilities are ${\hat{p}}_i=(1+e^{-x_i^T\hat{\beta }}{)}^{-1}$. Subtracting the fitted log-likelihood from the saturated log-likelihood gives the binomial devianceA zero-count summand uses the continuous convention $0\log 0=0$. For the restricted model, replace ${\hat{p}}_i$ by ${\hat{p}}_i^{(0)}=(1+e^{-{\tilde{x}}_i^T\hat{\tilde{\beta }}}{)}^{-1}$ to obtain $D_0$. Since the saturated likelihood cancels, $D_0-D_1=2({\hat{\ell }}_1-{\hat{\ell }}_0)$ is the likelihood-ratio test statistic. For the nested restriction setting $p-k$ coefficients to zero, Wilks theorem gives the asymptotic chi-squared distribution ${\chi }_{p-k}^2$ under regularity and an interior true parameter; reject for a large difference.

For the six anther cells, ${\omega }_0$ gives a common success probability, ${\omega }_1$ gives a separate probability for each storage condition, ${\omega }_2$ gives a common intercept and a log-force slope, and ${\omega }_3$ gives storage-specific intercepts with a common log-force slope. Their parameter counts are $1,2,2,3$, so their residual statistical degrees of freedom are $5,4,4,3$. In ${\omega }_3$, storage has a constant effect on log odds; multiplying force by $r$ multiplies the odds by $r^{\beta }$ in either storage group.

The relevant nested likelihood-ratio tests at the $5\%$ level are:

The two two-parameter models ${\omega }_1$ and ${\omega }_2$ are not nested, so their deviance difference has no ordinary nested chi-squared distribution calibration. The preferred parsimonious model is ${\omega }_1$, with a storage effect and no log-force effect. Its deviance goodness-of-fit test is acceptable: $D_1=5.173<9.49$ on four statistical degrees of freedom. The common-probability model also passes its separate goodness-of-fit comparison, $10.452<11.07$, but this does not contradict the relative evidence for adding storage: the two tests assess different null hypotheses. These are large-sample approximations; sufficiently large expected successes and failures, not merely the number of anthers, underpin their calibration.

Under the null hypothesis, the defect count in each packet has a binomial distribution with parameters $3,\theta$. The likelihood, apart from factors independent of $\theta$, isThe maximum-likelihood estimate is thereforeThe fitted binomial distribution probabilities for counts $0,1,2,3$ are $27/64,27/64,9/64,1/64$, yielding expected packet counts $108,108,36,4$. The Pearson chi-squared goodness-of-fit test usesFor binomial goodness-of-fit with an estimated parameter, there are $4-1-1=2$ statistical degrees of freedom: the category counts have a fixed total, and one parameter was estimated. At the conventional $5\%$ level the chi-squared distribution with two statistical degrees of freedom has upper critical value $5.99$, so the data do not reject the independent common-defect-probability model. The approximate p-value is $e^{-X^2/2}\simeq 0.146$; even at $10\%$, the critical value $4.61$ exceeds the observed statistic.

This is a goodness-of-fit conclusion rather than proof that individual bulbs are independent. The last expected count is only $4$, so the chi-squared asymptotic approximation is somewhat marginal in that cell. The stated calibration is the usual asymptotic test with all four cells retained; if more accurate small-count inference is required, calibrate the fitted statistic under the binomial distribution model. Pooling cells would require a corresponding treatment of parameter fitting and test calibration.

This is an analysis of covariance: achievement is the response, aptitude is a quantitative covariate, and teaching method is a categorical explanatory variable. The usual normal linear model assumes independent errors with common variance ${\sigma }^2$.

read.table reads the data with a header row; attach makes its columns directly accessible, and the two printed vectors confirm their ordering. rep(1:3, each=7) supplies the three group labels, and factor makes them categorical. The contrast option selects treatment coding for unordered factors, with method A as the first-level reference. The polynomial option would apply to ordered factors and has no role here.

The formula using aptitude * Group includes both main effects and their interaction. Writing $I_B,I_C$ for the method indicators, its fitted mean has the formThus A, B and C have separate intercepts and slopes. There are six coefficients and $21-6=15$ residual statistical degrees of freedom. The analysis of variance table uses sequential sums of squares: adding aptitude to an intercept-only model removes $36.57548$ from the residual sum of squares; subsequently adding the two group indicators removes $16.93200$; adding the two slope interactions removes only $0.66714$. The remaining sum of squares is $9.63490$, giving mean square $9.63490/15=0.64233$.

Each displayed F-test divides the added term's sum of squares by its statistical degrees of freedom and then by this full-model residual mean square. In particular the interaction test isThere is no evidence that the slopes differ, so the common-slope model is preferable among the fitted models. The small group $p$-value concerns differences after including aptitude, whereas the first aptitude row is sequential and does not adjust for Group. It should not be interpreted as the covariate test after treatment adjustment.

The additive formula gives the parallel-lines modelIt has four coefficients and $17$ residual statistical degrees of freedom. Removing the interaction raises the residual sum of squares to $9.63490+0.66714=10.30204$, but lowers the residual mean square to $10.30204/17=0.60600$. The sequential aptitude and group sums of squares are unchanged. The adjusted group test is now $F=(16.93200/2)/0.60600=13.97024$ on $(2,17)$ statistical degrees of freedom, with $p=0.0002579$: after allowing for initial aptitude, the methods are not all equally effective.

summary(..., cor=F) displays the fitted coefficients, their standard errors, the individual $t$ statistics, and two-sided $p$-values; it omits the coefficient-correlation matrix. The intercept $2.8367$ is the fitted A mean at aptitude zero, which is outside the observed range and is mainly a parametrization device. The common slope $0.7429$ predicts about $0.74$ extra achievement units per aptitude unit, holding method fixed. Its adjusted $t$ test is $5.2267$ on $17$ statistical degrees of freedom, with $p$ about $0.0001$. The method coefficients are adjusted differences from A, not the B and C intercepts themselves. The three fitted lines areThe B-minus-A estimate is $2.1878$ with standard error $0.4545$ and $t=4.8139$; the C-minus-A estimate is $1.8612$ with standard error $0.4240$ and $t=4.3901$. Both comparisons are strongly significant.

The B-minus-C comparison needs its own treatment contrast; its significance cannot be read off either comparison with A. Reconstructing the coefficient covariance from the design givesThus there is no detectable difference between B and C. This is consistent with pooling their effects in a further reduced model, but does not establish exact equality.

The residual standard error is $\sqrt{0.60600}=0.7785$. The five-number residual summary shows deviations on both sides of zero, with the largest magnitude about $1.74$; it does not by itself verify constant variance or normality. The coefficient of determination $R^2=0.8386$ means about $84\%$ of the achievement variation about its overall mean is explained. The overall $F=29.43$ compares all three nonintercept coefficients with zero, on $(3,17)$ statistical degrees of freedom; its $p$-value is $5.889\times 10^{-7}$. Printed coefficient $p$-values rounded to 0.0000 are small, not literally zero.

The following original sketch shows the separate-slope model and the preferred parallel-line fit.

At the same initial aptitude, B and C give higher predicted achievement than A, with no convincing difference between B and C. Interpreting this adjusted association as a causal teaching effect additionally relies on the experimental allocation and error assumptions.

For an exponential dispersion family, differentiating the normalization integral with respect to $\theta$ gives an expected score of zero. The score is $(Y-b^{\prime }(\theta ))/\varphi$, hence $E(Y)=b^{\prime }(\theta )$. Differentiating again, the expected squared score is $b^{\prime \prime }(\theta )/\varphi$; it is also $\mathrm{Var}(Y)/{\varphi }^2$. ThusThe canonical link function sets the linear predictor equal to the natural parameter: $g(\mu )=\theta =(b^{\prime }{)}^{-1}(\mu )$. The variance function is $V(\mu )=b^{\prime \prime }((b^{\prime }{)}^{-1}(\mu ))$, so $\mathrm{Var}(Y_i)=\varphi V({\mu }_i)$; the dispersion parameter $\varphi$ is separated from the mean-dependent factor.

The saturated statistical model has a separate mean for each response and fits ${\tilde{\mu }}_i=y_i$, with boundary parameters interpreted by limits. At the same fixed dispersion, its log likelihood and the fitted model's log-likelihood define the scaled devianceThe unscaled deviance isKeeping dispersion fixed in this definition is essential; it is not a comparison with a separately estimated zero variance in a Gaussian saturated fit.

For the normal distribution, expanding its density exponent givesConsequentlyHere $V(\mu )=1$ and the canonical link is the identity, so ${\mu }_i={\beta }^T{x}_i$. The saturated natural parameter is ${\tilde{\theta }}_i=y_i$. Substitution into the deviance formula yields

For the cholesterol fits, all formulae include an intercept. Model 1 has age and BMI with three coefficients; models 2 and 3 have one of these covariates with two coefficients; model 4 has only the intercept. Their residual statistical degrees of freedom are respectively $27,28,28,29$. Their reported deviances are residual sums of squares, because these are Gaussian linear models.

The relevant hypothesis is $H_0:{\beta }_{\mathrm{BMI}}=0$ in the full model, against $H_1:{\beta }_{\mathrm{BMI}}\ne 0$, with age already present. Thus compare model 2 with model 1 using the partial F-test. Its extra sum of squares is $31.64-27.10=4.54$, and the common variance is estimated from model 1 by ${\hat{\sigma }}^2=27.10/27$. ThereforeSince $4.52325>4.210$, reject at $5\%$; the two-sided coefficient-test equivalent has $p\simeq 0.0427$. BMI is associated with cholesterol after adjustment for age, under the linear Gaussian model. The RSS values alone do not identify the sign of its coefficient or the size of the association.

For comparison, the marginal BMI test would compare model 4 with model 3, giving $F=13.88/(35.82/28)=10.8498$ on $(1,28)$ statistical degrees of freedom, with $p\simeq 0.00268$. This does not answer the adjusted question and makes the BMI evidence appear stronger than the conditional test. Age also contributes after BMI: comparing model 3 with model 1 gives $F=8.72/(27.10/27)=8.6878$ on $(1,27)$ statistical degrees of freedom, with $p\simeq 0.00653$. Thus retaining both predictors is supported at the stated level.

A raw deviance difference must not simply be compared with the supplied ${\chi }_1^2$ cutoff: Gaussian dispersion is unknown and the differences here are unscaled. If ${\sigma }^2$ were known, the scaled difference $4.54/{\sigma }^2$ would have a ${\chi }_1^2$ law. Estimating it from the full fit gives the exact finite-sample $F$ comparison above, with the appropriate denominator statistical degrees of freedom.

factor(day) treats the nine days as categorical rather than imposing a numerical time trend. rep(400,27) supplies the number of trials for every dish, and prop is the observed surviving proportion. The contrast setting uses treatment coding with day 1 as reference; the ordered-factor polynomial option is unused. Supplying these proportions to glm with the binomial family and weights $400$ gives precisely the grouped-binomial logistic regression likelihood for the counts. The weights represent trial counts, not additional independent dish observations. The binomial family's default link is the logit link and its dispersion is fixed at $1$.

Let $Y_{ij}$ be survivors in dish $j=1,2,3$ on day $i=1,\dots ,9$. Both fitted models assume independent $Y_{ij}\sim \mathrm{Bin}(400,p_i)$. Model 1 specifiesso it has one common probability and one fitted coefficient. Its estimated probability is the total surviving count divided by the total trial count, $\hat{p}=3539/10800\simeq 0.327685$.

Model 2 specifiesIt has nine coefficients and allows a separate probability for each day, while retaining a common probability for the three dishes within that day. The MLEs are the day totals divided by $1200$. In day order they areThe intercept is the first day's logit, and each other coefficient is its day's logit minus that reference. These are additive effects on log odds, not additive changes in survival probability.

The analysis of deviance adds the eight day indicators after an intercept-only model. Its residual deviance compares a fitted model with the saturated statistical model assigning one separate probability to each of the $27$ dishes. For fitted dish probabilities ${\hat{p}}_{ij}$, the binomial deviance isThe binomial scale is one, so this is also scaled deviance. The reported decrease measures the extra fit provided by day. There are $27$ observational units for these residual statistical degrees of freedom, not $10800$ separately fitted Bernoulli responses.

The additive model gives useful evidence for both predictors. To test for no adjusted sex effect, use $H_0:{\beta }_M=0$ against $H_1:{\beta }_M\ne 0$. The statistic $T={\hat{\beta }}_M/\mathrm{se}({\hat{\beta }}_M)$ has a Student t-distribution with 97 statistical degrees of freedom under the normal linear model and the null hypothesis. Here $T=3.016$ and $p=0.00327$. Similarly, $H_0:{\beta }_h=0$ against a nonzero common slope gives $T=4.397\sim t_{97}$ under the null hypothesis, with $p=2.81\times 10^{-5}$. Thus, at a fixed height males have a higher fitted mean weight, and within sex greater height is associated with greater weight.

The interaction model adds $\delta M(x-165)$. Its female height slope is $0.6696$ and its male height slope is $0.6696-0.0977=0.5719$. Test $H_0:\delta =0$ against $H_1:\delta \ne 0$ using $T=-0.344\sim t_{96}$ under the null hypothesis, or equivalently $T^2\sim F_{1,96}$. The $p$-value is 0.73139. The additive model is a reasonable parsimonious choice; the data give no evidence for different height slopes between sexes. This does not establish exact equality of population slopes. The additive model also has the higher adjusted coefficient of determination, 0.405 versus 0.3996, and a slightly smaller residual standard error.

Ignoring sex gives a height slope of 0.8769, appreciably above the adjusted slope 0.6211. This is omitted-variable bias in the descriptive regression: a taller group with a larger intercept makes the pooled height association steeper. Algebraically, with $z=x-165$,The printed estimates imply a positive height-sex covariance. Pooled and adjusted slopes therefore describe different comparisons; the difference is not evidence that adding sex changed a physical effect of height. For predictions, retain both sex and height, check regression diagnostics, and assess performance on new students. The residual standard error near 5.7 remains substantial and the coefficient of determination near 0.42 does not promise precise individual prediction.

A regression factor is a categorical predictor represented by level indicators and contrasts. Treating year as a regression factor permits arbitrary differences between the three yearly means, reflecting conditions such as weather, rather than imposing a linear time trend.

Let $Y_{ijk}$ be the yield for seed variety $i\in \{1,2\}$, fertiliser level $j\in \{L,H\}$, and year $k\in \{2004,2005,2006\}$. A treatment-coded two-factor normal linear model with additive year effects iswith independent $N(0,{\sigma }^2)$ errors. The unrestricted coefficients are ${\beta }_0,a,b,c_{2005},c_{2006},d$: six parameters for twelve observations. Equivalently use baseline-zero variety, fertiliser, and interaction arrays. There are no year-treatment interactions in this fit.

Dividing each sum of squares by its statistical degrees of freedom gives the completed analysis of variance:In particular, the missing interaction statistic is $16.0083/(2.8414/6)\simeq 33.803$. Its null hypothesis is $H_0:d=0$, against $H_1:d\ne 0$: the change in mean yield from high fertiliser is the same for both varieties. Under the null hypothesis and the independent homoscedastic normal linear model, this nested-model F-test has distribution $F_{1,6}$. The printed $p$-value 0.001137 strongly rejects no interaction.

Do not drop fertiliser just because its main-effect ANOVA row has $p=0.7011$. In this balanced factorial design that row measures a fertiliser effect averaged over varieties; large opposite effects can cancel. The strongly supported interaction requires retaining its associated main effects by regression model hierarchy. Seed and year also have evidence of effects in their ANOVA rows, so this table alone gives no compelling simplification of the fitted terms.

The interaction contrast is $-4.6200$, with standard error 0.7946. The fitted high-minus-low fertiliser effect is $+2.4700$ for variety 1 but $2.4700-4.6200=-2.1500$ for variety 2. The fitted variety-2-minus-variety-1 contrast is $+3.6500$ under low fertiliser and $3.6500-4.6200=-0.9700$ under high fertiliser. Thus variety 2 performs best under low fertiliser, while high fertiliser benefits variety 1 and reduces variety 2's fitted yield. The marginal fertiliser effect is only $(2.4700-2.1500)/2=0.1600$.

The four fitted means in the baseline year are $5.5050,7.9750,9.1550,7.0050$ for $(1,L),(1,H),(2,L),(2,H)$ respectively. Add $1.5775$ in 2005 and $0.0875$ in 2006 to every fitted mean. The 2005 coefficient has $p=0.017646$ under a $t_6$ test of a zero contrast with 2004; the analogous 2006 contrast has $p=0.863216$. The latter is lack of evidence for a difference, not proof that the yearly means coincide. Standard errors for the combined contrasts require the coefficient covariance matrix. The experiment is small: residual standard error is 0.6882 on only six statistical degrees of freedom. If the same fields were reused, possible within-field dependence and field allocation would need checking before treating the fitted error independence as established.

There are 23 independent vial responses. The intercept-only fit has 22 residual statistical degrees of freedom and deviance 33.631. Adding two day indicators removes two statistical degrees of freedom and reduces the residual deviance by $33.631-33.358=0.273$. Adding the two species indicators then reduces it by $33.358-14.646=18.712$. Thus the six replacements, in their printed order, are $22,33.631,2,0.273,18.712,14.646$.

The residual deviance statistical degrees of freedom are $23-1=22$, $23-3=20$, and $23-5=18$. These sequential analysis-of-deviance rows compare nested generalized linear models in the displayed order. In an unbalanced design, the first day row does not test day after controlling for species.

The saturated model estimates each Poisson mean separately as $Y_i$, permitting the boundary value zero when $Y_i=0$. Subtracting fitted from saturated log-likelihood gives the Poisson deviancewith $0\log (0/{\hat{\mu }}_i)=0$. A zero observation contributes $2{\hat{\mu }}_i$. If the model includes an intercept, the score equation gives ${\sum }_i{Y}_i={\sum }_i{\hat{\mu }}_i$, so the summed linear terms cancel; the unsimplified expression applies generally.

For goodness of fit, the null hypothesis is that the specified independent Poisson mean model is correct; the alternative is an unrestricted collection of means. When a quadratic likelihood approximation is valid, for example with fixed $n$ and large expected counts, $D$ has approximately a chi-squared distribution with $n-p$ statistical degrees of freedom. Reject for a large upper-tail deviance. Merely increasing the number of sparse observations does not make this saturated-model reference reliable: the alternative dimension also increases. With small fitted means, replication-based checks or a parametric bootstrap are more defensible. This qualification concerns the absolute goodness-of-fit deviance; a fixed-dimensional nested likelihood-ratio comparison can have a better chi-squared approximation.

A Poisson model assumes independent counts between rats conditional on time, a common mean at a given time, and conditional variance equal to that mean. Comparable observation units and consistent counting are needed; unexplained rat-to-rat heterogeneity is excluded by this simple specification. The quadratic Poisson regression isThe printed nested analysis of deviance tests $H_0:{\beta }_2=0$ against $H_1:{\beta }_2\ne 0$. Its likelihood-ratio statistic is $G^2=3.8548$, approximately ${\chi }_1^2$ under the null hypothesis and regular Poisson asymptotics. The reported $p=0.0496$ gives borderline rejection of the log-linear time effect at 5%, conditional on the Poisson assumptions. This is curvature of the log mean, rather than an ordinary quadratic model for the count itself.

There are only three distinct time values, so the intercept, linear term, and quadratic term span every possible set of three log means. This is Poisson mean saturation at three distinct times: the quadratic fit is saturated for the time-group means, which are $14/7=2$, $17/8=2.125$, and $47/7\simeq 6.7143$. A grouped deviance comparison against unrestricted time-group means has zero statistical degrees of freedom: the quadratic functional form cannot be tested at these three times. The individual-observation deviance 24.515 still describes within-group departure from the Poisson distribution, but small means and zeros make the naive ${\chi }_{19}^2$ goodness-of-fit calibration doubtful. Poisson variation itself can be checked using the replicates, preferably by a parametric bootstrap; it is not rendered untestable by the saturated mean specification.

Overdispersion means conditional variance exceeding the variance assumed by the Poisson mean model. For example, rats may have different latent susceptibility, so if $Y\mid \Lambda \sim \mathrm{Pois}(\Lambda )$, the law of total variance gives $\mathrm{Var}(Y)=\mathbb{E}\Lambda +\mathrm{Var}(\Lambda )>\mathbb{E}Y$. A quasi-Poisson model instead uses $\mathrm{Var}(Y_i)=\varphi {\mu }_i$. The Pearson-residual dispersion estimate is $\hat{\varphi }=1.254068$, using $n-p=22-3=19$.

For the conventional quasi-likelihood comparison with estimated dispersion, useIts upper-tail probability is about 0.096, so the evidence for curvature no longer reaches 5%. The F-distribution is an approximate calibration, not an exact small-sample result for arbitrary overdispersed counts; quasi-likelihood does not supply a full Poisson likelihood. With known dispersion one would instead compare $G^2/\varphi$ approximately with ${\chi }_1^2$. The displayed dispersion code uses the undefined name acf.glm2; its fitted values must be those of aom.glm2 for the stated calculation.

Test $H_0:{\gamma }_d=0$ for both nonreference days, against at least one nonzero day fixed effect, conditional on chocolate. There are two added regression coefficients and $24-6=18$ residual statistical degrees of freedom. The nested-model F-test statistic isUnder $H_0$ and the normal linear model assumptions, $F\sim F_{2,18}$. Its 5% upper critical value is $3.555$, so do not reject the absence of day effects; the p-value is approximately $0.456$. Thus the missing row has two statistical degrees of freedom, mean square $4.875$, and the F-test value above. These observations do not provide evidence that including day improves the chocolate-adjusted mean model. They do not prove that every possible day effect or chocolate–day interaction term is absent.

The Quasi-Poisson regression retains the same conditional mean but permitsThis is a mean–variance function specification through quasi-likelihood; it does not assign a full probability distribution to each count. For independent observations, the quasi-score equation is proportional to ${\sum }_i{x}_i(Y_i-{\mu }_i)=0$, so the mean statistical parameter estimates equal those from Poisson regression. The output estimates $\hat{\varphi }=3.515351$ through the Pearson dispersion estimator, and inflates the standard errors by approximately $\sqrt{\hat{\varphi }}=1.875$.

The large residual deviance relative to 728 residual statistical degrees of freedom also signals substantial overdispersion. Daily weather, traffic and other omitted conditions may produce greater count variation than a homogeneous Poisson distribution allows. The Quasi-Poisson regression accounts for that extra marginal variance. It still requires a correct conditional mean and an appropriate independence assumption; a common dispersion parameter alone does not repair serial correlation.

Allow each subject to have a separate baseline and slope through a correlated random-intercept and random-slope model:The subject random effects are independent of all measurement errors, and subjects are independent. The within-person covariance between times $s,t$ is ${\tau }_0^2+(s+t)\rho {\tau }_0{\tau }_1+st{\tau }_1^2$, with an additional ${\sigma }^2$ when the same reading is used twice.

Prefer the model with a random slope. The maximum likelihood estimation refits improve twice the log-likelihood by $227.9604$ while adding two covariance statistical parameters. Both the Akaike information criterion ($5165.779$ to $4941.819$) and Bayesian information criterion ($5183.367$ to $4968.200$) strongly favour it. The printed nominal likelihood-ratio test is overwhelming. The usual reference chi-squared distribution with two statistical degrees of freedom is not an exact regular calibration, since zero slope variance is a boundary and the intercept–slope correlation is then unidentified; a design-specific parametric bootstrap could calibrate it. This qualification does not undermine the substantial descriptive improvement shown by both information criteria.

The preferred fit estimates population mean baseline strength ${\hat{\beta }}_0=61.09286$ kg and weekly gain ${\hat{\beta }}_1=2.83143$ kg/week. The between-person baseline standard deviation is ${\hat{\tau }}_0=15.785582$ kg, and the between-person slope standard deviation is ${\hat{\tau }}_1=2.738666$ kg/week. Their estimated correlation $\hat{\rho }=0.117$ is weakly positive, giving random-effect covariance about $5.058$ kg${}^2$/week; its uncertainty is not supplied. The measurement-error standard deviation is $\hat{\sigma }=9.923280$ kg. The printed $-0.038$ instead describes the correlation between the estimated fixed effects, not between the subject random effects. These statistical parameter estimates come from restricted maximum likelihood; the model comparison uses the separate maximum likelihood estimation fits.

The population mean fitted trajectory is $61.09286+2.83143t$ kg. HenceUsing the reported slope standard error, an approximate 95% confidence interval for the population mean gain is $28.3143\pm 1.96(2.984464)=(22.46,34.16)$ kg; a Student t confidence interval with 499 statistical degrees of freedom is almost identical.

Successful individuals can improve far more than the average. Their latent ten-week gains have fitted normal distributionA clear estimate for an upper-performing group uses a between-person slope quantile: the 95th percentile is $28.3143+1.645(27.38666)\simeq 73.4$ kg, and the 97.5th percentile is about $82.0$ kg. The upper 5% of fitted underlying gains begin around 73 kg. These are person-to-person performance quantiles, not confidence intervals for the population mean. Identifying the best observed trainee would require that person's data or fitted subject random effects; the aggregate output cannot identify a literal maximum. If performance means the observed difference of endpoint readings, add the measurement-error variance $2{\sigma }^2$ to the latent gain variance.

The preferred cumulative-response logistic model estimatesIts logit link describes conditional smoking-free probability given baseline predictors and prior successful weeks. Holding the other predictors fixed, males have $e^{-0.364092}=0.695$ times the female success odds; the reported p-value is $0.0152$, and the approximate 95% odds ratio confidence interval is $(0.518,0.932)$. Age has estimated odds ratio $e^{0.001224}=1.0012$ per additional year, with p-value $0.918$, giving little evidence for an age association in this fit.

The combined treatment has conditional success odds ratio $e^{0.327118}=1.387$ versus the reference treatment, with approximate 95% confidence interval $(1.035,1.859)$ and p-value $0.0285$. The fitted conditional odds are about 39% higher for the combined treatment. The trial randomization supports treatment comparisons, but conditioning on accumulated post-treatment outcomes means this coefficient is not directly the marginal total treatment effect.

Each previous successful week multiplies current success odds by $e^{0.399296}=1.491$, with approximate 95% confidence interval $(1.329,1.673)$ and very small p-value $1.06\times 10^{-11}$. This is strong fitted persistence. It can reflect true state dependence, unobserved heterogeneity, or an omitted calendar-time trend; this fit alone cannot distinguish them. The baseline intercept implies success probability ${\mathrm{logit}}^{-1}(-1.417630)\simeq 0.195$ for a reference-treatment female aged zero with no previous success. That age is outside the study's useful interpretation range, so the intercept chiefly anchors the regression. The Bernoulli distribution dispersion parameter is fixed at one, and the residual binomial deviance is 1122 on 995 statistical degrees of freedom. With individual binary outcomes, comparing that binomial deviance mechanically to a chi-squared distribution is not a reliable general goodness-of-fit test.

Under $H_0$, the seven free covariate coefficients all equal zero. The likelihood-ratio test statistic isThe larger fit has ten free statistical parameters, compared with three in the constant-rate fit, so the reference chi-squared distribution has seven statistical degrees of freedom. Its 95th percentile is $14.06714$. Therefore reject $H_0$ at 5%; the p-value is approximately $0.0043$, and the covariate model is preferred. The two constrained sex coefficients add no free statistical parameters.

For the dementia-to-death arrow, the hazard ratio for higher versus lower education is $e^{-1.490}=0.2254$, with approximate 95% confidence interval $(e^{-2.547},e^{-0.4327})=(0.0783,0.6488)$. Thus higher education is associated with a roughly 77.5% lower fitted death transition intensity, conditional on diagnosis age; the interval excludes one. This is an observational association and is not a direct multiplicative statement about death probability.

Each additional year of age at diagnosis multiplies the dementia-to-death transition intensity by $e^{0.07984}=1.0831$, with confidence interval $(e^{-0.007765},e^{0.1674})=(0.9923,1.1822)$. The estimate suggests an increase, but the interval includes one, so this individual age coefficient is not significant at 5%. Sex has hazard ratio one for this transition by the model's imposed constraint. The output supplies no estimated sex effect or test of that constraint for this arrow. The nonzero sex coefficient for $1\to 2$ must not be mistaken for a sex effect on $2\to 3$.