---
格式版本: 2
标题: "Goodness-of-Fit Tests and Calibration Machine-Learning Algorithms for Logistic Regression with Sparse Data"
原文链接: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11140"
发布日期: "2026-08-11"
发布时间校准状态: "found"
发布时间需复核: "否"
发布时间来源: "rule:local:strict_original_body"
发布时间证据: "**\\[v1\\]** Tue, 11 Aug 2026 17:00:50 UTC (10,644 KB)"
发布时间校准原因: "规则确认唯一严格发布时间，来源 local:strict_original_body"
发布时间校准置信度: "high"
发布时间候选数量: 18
发布时间严格候选数量: 6
发布时间原页读取状态: "source template page reused from URL open"
发布时间未找到原因: ""
发布时间校准时间: "2026-08-12T11:26:02+08:00"
发布时间仲裁状态: "skipped"
发布时间仲裁尝试次数: 0
发布时间仲裁耗时毫秒: 0
发现时间: "2026-08-12T11:25:10+08:00"
入库时间: "2026-08-12T03:26:02.237Z"
来源平台: "arXiv 学术论文搜索"
搜索渠道: "source_template"
搜索词: "https://arxiv.org/search/?query=model%20fit&searchtype=all"
匹配关键词:
  - "model fit"
相关厂家:
  []
相关专家:
  []
内容类型: "网页"
抓取工具: "Free Fetch + Defuddle"
清洗工具: "Defuddle Markdown + Defuddle/Readability 正文提取"
原始附件:
  []
AI优质: "否"
AI打分: 10
AI分档: "非优质"
AI质检状态: "不通过"
AI打分理由: "该资料为统计学论文，讨论逻辑回归模型拟合检验，与超节点/AI Rack/机柜级AI基础设施完全无关。"
AI质检模型: "ali-deepseek-v4-flash"
AI质检时间: "2026-08-12T11:26:07+08:00"
AI主题相关性: 0
AI来源权威性: 5
AI新颖性: 0
AI技术细节: 0
AI商业部署信号: 0
AI完整性: 5
采集批次: "2026年8月12日2点04分20秒"
采集批次ID: "20260812-020420-289"
去重键: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11140"
---

## Statistics > Methodology

## Title:Goodness-of-Fit Tests and Calibration Machine-Learning Algorithms for Logistic Regression with Sparse Data

Authors:[Ebrahim Khaled Ebrahim](https://arxiv.org/search/stat?searchtype=author&query=Ebrahim,+E+K)

[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.11140) [HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2608.11140v1)

> Abstract:Assessing the goodness-of-fit of a logistic regression model is a critical prerequisite before the model is used for inference. However, goodness-of-fit (GOF) tests such as the chi-square and deviance tests often give invalid results when the data are "sparse" -- a common issue with continuous predictors like age or weight, where the asymptotic distributional assumptions are not satisfied. This thesis studies classical GOF tests for binary logistic regression under both grouped and sparse data, comparing about 30 statistical tests and machine-learning calibration algorithms. These span the classical chi-square and Hosmer-Lemeshow variants, standardized Pearson statistics, covariate-space partitioning, smoothing-based methods, and contemporary calibration machine-learning and bootstrap procedures. At a fixed size, the GiViTI calibration test (2016), McCullagh (1989), Osius-Rojek (1992), le Cessie (1995) and Stute-Zhu (2002) proved empirically powerful, balancing correct identification of bad models (high empirical power) against not raising false alarms on good models (correct empirical Type I error). Relying on formal methods alone is insufficient: visual diagnostics such as calibration plots are a vital exploratory step for detecting model deficiencies that formal tests often overlook. An application to real data (the Low Birth Weight dataset) shows that many of these tests fail to give valid conclusions when exposed to the complexities of actual datasets. The main conclusion is that model assessment requires a combination of several powerful statistical tests alongside careful visual inspection of model calibration.

| Comments: |  |
| --- | --- |
| Subjects: | Methodology (stat.ME); Applications (stat.AP); Machine Learning (stat.ML) |
| MSC classes: | 62J12, 62F03, 62-08, 62P10 |
| ACM classes: | G.3 |
| Cite as: | [arXiv:2608.11140](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11140) \[stat.ME\] |
|  | (or [arXiv:2608.11140v1](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11140v1) \[stat.ME\] for this version) |
|  | [https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.11140](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.11140) |

## Submission history

From: Ebrahim Khaled Ebrahim \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/36986d83/2608.11140)\]  
**\[v1\]** Tue, 11 Aug 2026 17:00:50 UTC (10,644 KB)

[Which authors of this paper are endorsers?](https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2608.11140) | Disable MathJax ([What is MathJax?](https://info.arxiv.org/help/mathjax.html))