© All Rights Reserved

241 views

© All Rights Reserved

- BMD in PVM KN Per m
- Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods
- Gender Pay Gab_Australia
- Comparacion AADEE_AVL Version Ingles New
- Hou
- Gretl eBook
- thesis_7_28_07
- Bs Project Grp 8
- EWCOR_12
- Linear Regression
- Dams Duflo
- 4. Chapter 4 Demand Estimation (1)
- Flow of Statistical Analysis_Full Version
- Cheat Sheet
- bgpe_2_ols
- Applied Regression Analysis (Juran) SP2016
- Fooled
- 2016 Statistics
- Var
- econometrics ii july 2016.pdf

You are on page 1of 22

Recall: Ordinary Least Squares Model

Note:

A fundamental aspect of linear-regression models is that they attempt to describe how the location of

the conditional distribution behaves by utilizing the mean of a distribution to represent its central

tendency.

It invokes a homoscedasticity assumption; that is, the conditional variance, Var (y|x), is assumed to be

a constant 2 for all values of the covariate.

A third distinctive feature of the OLS is its normality assumption.

Outliers (cases that do not follow the relationship for the majority of the data) tend to have undue

influence on the fitted regression line.

Consider an extreme situation:

Note that: These results show that the LRM approach can be inadequate for a variety of reasons, including

heteroscedasticity and outlier assumptions and the failure to detect multiple forms of shape shifts.

Source

SS

df

MS

Model

Residual

7.7702e+12

2

3.9306e+13 22621

3.8851e+12

1.7376e+09

Total

4.7076e+13 22623

2.0809e+09

income

Coef.

ed

white

_cons

6313.654

11451.75

-42655.95

Std. Err.

100.8045

799.8409

1442.537

t

62.63

14.32

-29.57

Number of obs

F( 2, 22621)

Prob > F

R-squared

Adj R-squared

Root MSE

P>|t|

=

22624

= 2235.92

= 0.0000

= 0.1651

= 0.1650

=

41684

0.000

0.000

0.000

6116.07

9884.01

-45483.42

6511.237

13019.5

-39828.47

. estat hettest,normal

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance

Variables: fitted values of income

chi2(1)

Prob > chi2

=

=

5180.30

0.0000

Ordinary Least Squares

objective function

residuals

estimates

such as conditional median

functions

allows

heteroskedasticity?

no

yes

distributional

assumptions

of error terms

none

comprehensiveness

the conditional mean E(Y|X)

whole conditional distribution of Y

Proposed by Koenker and Bassett (1978), quantile regression models conditional quantiles as functions of

predictors. It estimates the effect of a covariate on various quantiles in the conditional distribution.

In Quantile Regression, the distance of points from a line is measured using a weighted sum of vertical

distances (without squaring):

points below the fitted line are given a weight 1-p;

points above the fitted line are given a weight p.

Each choice for this proportion p gives rise to a different fitted conditional-quantile function. The task is to find

an estimator with the desired property for each possible p.

The quantile regression is described by the following equation:

where

is defined as

The following are the existing algorithms to obtain the regression estimator:

Simplex Method - for moderate data size

Interior Point Method - for large data size

Interior Point Method with Preprocessing - for very large data sets (n>10 5)

Smoothing Method

1.

2.

3.

4.

Scale Equivariant

Regression Shift Equivariant

Equivariant to Reparametrization of Design

Equivariant to Monotone Transformation

Methods of Constructing Confidence Intervals

1. Sparsity

- based on the asymptotic distribution of the

: the asymptotic dispersion matrix involves the

reciprocal of the density function of the error terms

- this reciprocal is called the sparsity function and this must be estimated first before confidence

intervals can be constructed

- yields different estimates for the case of i.i.d error terms and for the case of non-i.i.d. error

terms

2. Inversion of Rank Tests

- generalization of sign tests

- based on the relationship between order statistics and rank scores

- involves linear programming (simplex method)

- computationally burdensome for large data sets

3. Bootstrap (Resampling)

- does not make use of any distributional assumption

- the number of resamples, M, is usually between 50 and 200

Recommendation:

Let n be the number of observations and k be the number of parameters.

n 1000 and k 10

Bootstrap

Sparsity

1. Wald Test

Ho:

, where

Test statistic:

where

parameters in .

Ho:

, where

Test statistic:

where

parameters in .

Remark: Koenker and Machado (1999) prove that these two tests are asymptotically equivalent.

Let p and q be distinct quantiles.

Ho:

Ha:

Test statistic:

where

.

.

Ho:

Ha:

Test statistic:

where

specified in Ho.

Goodness of Fit

Recall:

In ordinary least squares, the goodness of fit is measured by R 2, the coefficient of determination. It is

interpreted as the proportion of the variation in the dependent variable explained by the predictor variables in

the model.

An analog of the R 2 statistic is developed for quantile-regression models. Since quantile-regression models are

based on minimizing a sum of weighted distances with different weights used depending on whether

or

Koenker and Machado (1999) suggest measuring goodness of fit by comparing the sum of weighted distances

for the model of interest with the sum in which only the intercept appears. Let

be the sum of weighted

distances for the full pth quantile regression model and let

be the sum of weighted distance for the

model that includes only a constant term.

8 CELOSO | LIBRES | MARCELINO | RIGODON | SAMILEY

and

Since

are nonnegative, R (p) is at most 1. Also,

is greater than or equal to

implying that R (p) is greater than or equal to zero. Hence, R (p) is [0, 1] with larger R (p) indicating better fit.

R (p) allows for comparison of a fitted model with any number of covariates to the model in which only the

intercept is present.

To extend the concept of R (p), relative R (p) is introduced. It measures the fit relative to a more restricted

form of model. It can be expressed as,

where

, sum of weighted distances for the less restricted p th quantile

regression model

, sum of weighted distance for the more restricted model

STATA provides the measure of goodness of fit using R(p) and refers it as pseudo-R2.

Remark:

R(p) accounts for the appropriate weight each observation takes for specific quantile equation. It is easy to

comprehend and its interpretation follows the familiar R-squared for the OLS.

Interpretation of Coefficients

In OLS, fitted coefficients can be interpreted as the estimated change in the mean of the response variable

resulting from one unit increase in a continuous covariate.

9 CELOSO | LIBRES | MARCELINO | RIGODON | SAMILEY

Similarly, the QRM coefficient estimate is interpreted as the estimated change in the pth quantile of the

response variable corresponding to a unit change in the regressor.

Median-Regression Model

The simplest QRM is the median-regression model (MRM), expresses the conditional median of a response

variable given predictor variables and alternative to OLS that fits the conditional mean. MRM and OLS both

attempt to model the central location of a response variable.

Median-regression model is more suitable in modeling the behavior a collection of skewed conditional

distributions. For instance, if these conditional distributions are skewed to the right, their means reflects what

is happening in the upper tail and not in the middle.

Interpretation: In the case of a continuous covariate, the coefficient estimate is interpreted as the change in

the median of the response variable corresponding to a unit change in the predictor.

Using QRM Results to Interpret Shape Shifts

Two of the most important features to consider are scale (spread) and skewness.

The analysis of shape effects reveals more info than analysis of location effects alone.

Arrays of QRM coefficients for a range of quantiles can be used to determine how a one-unit increase in the

covariate affects the shape of the response distribution. This shape shift is highlighted using the graphical

method. For a particular covariate, we plot the coefficients and the confidence envelope, where the predictor

variable effects on the y-axis and the value of p is on the x-axis.

1. A horizontal line indicates a pure location shift by a one-unit increase in the covariate.

2. An upward-sloping curve indicates an increase in the scale

The effect of one unit increase of the regressor is positive for all values of p and steadily

increasing with p

3. Whereas a downward-sloping curve indicates a decrease in the scale of the conditional-response

distribution

Note that regressors are for shape shifts if

whenever p>q.

>

Scale Shifts

The standard deviation is commonly employed measure of the scale or spread for symmetric distribution For

skewed distributions, the distaces between selected quantiles provide a more informed description of the

spread than the standard deviation. For a value of p between 0 and .5,we identify two sample quantiles:Q(1-p)

and Q(p)(the pth quantile). The pth interquantile range, IQR(p)=Q(1p)Q(p) is a measure of spread. This

quantity describes the range of the middle (12p)

proportion of the distribution.

Suppose the reference group and comparison group have the same median. Fixing some choice of p, we can

measure the interquantile range IQRr = Ur Lr and IQRc = UcLc for the reference group and comparison group

respectively.The difference-in-differences IQRc IQRr as a measure of the scale shift.

The QRM fits provide an alternative approach to estimating scale-shift effects. Here,

is the fitted

coefficient indicating the increase or decrease in any particular quantile brought about by a unit increase in

the covariate. Thus, when we increase the covariate by one unit, the corresponding pth interquantile range

changes by the amount

which is the

When SCS(p) is zero, there is apparently no evidence of scale change. A negative value indicates that increasing

the covariate results in a decrease in scale, while a positive value indicates the opposite effect.

Skewness Shifts

A disproportional scale shift that relates to greater skewness indicates an additional effect on the shape of the

response distribution

Let Mr and Mc indicate the median of the reference and the comparison, respectively. The upper spread is U r

Mr

and Uc Mc for the reference and comparison, respectively. The lower spread is for the reference and M cLc for

the comparison. The disproportion can be measured by taking the ratio of Uc Mc / Ur Mr to McLc / Mr Lr

If this ratio-of-ratios equals 1, then there is no skewness shift. Ifthe ratio-of-ratios is less than 1, the rightskewness is reduced. If the ratio-of ratios is greater than 1, the right-skewness is increased. The shift in terms

of percentage change can be obtained by this quantity minus 1. This is known as quantity skewness shift,or

SKS

In general, using the QRM coefficients, model-based SKS is obtained. This involves the conditional quantiles of

the reference group. The SKSfor the middle 100(12p)%of the population is:

Note that because we take the ratio of two ratios, SKS effectively eliminates the influence of a proportional

scale shift. When SKS=0, it indicates either no scale shift or a proportional scale shift. SKS<0 indicates a

reduction of right-skewness due to the effect of the explanatory variable whereas SKS>0 indicates an

exacerbation of right-skewness.

Example 1:

income = household income

ed = number of years of education of household head

white = 1 if household head is white, 0 if black

. qreg income ed white

Iteration 1: WLS sum of weighted deviations =

Iteration 1: sum of abs. weighted

Iteration 2: sum of abs. weighted

Iteration 3: sum of abs. weighted

note: alternate solutions exist

Iteration 4: sum of abs. weighted

Iteration 5: sum of abs. weighted

Iteration 6: sum of abs. weighted

note: alternate solutions exist

Iteration 7: sum of abs. weighted

Iteration 8: sum of abs. weighted

6.202e+08

deviations =

deviations =

deviations =

6.202e+08

6.151e+08

6.086e+08

deviations =

deviations =

deviations =

6.043e+08

6.020e+08

6.018e+08

deviations =

deviations =

6.018e+08

6.018e+08

Median regression

Raw sum of deviations 6.68e+08 (about 39977.45)

Min sum of deviations 6.02e+08

income

Coef.

ed

white

_cons

4794.333

9792.334

-29927.67

Std. Err.

91.68188

727.3664

1312.101

t

52.29

13.46

-22.81

P>|t|

0.000

0.000

0.000

Number of obs =

Pseudo R2

22624

0.0985

4614.63

8366.645

-32499.47

4974.036

11218.02

-27355.86

An additional one year of education will increase the median income by about $4,794. The median income of

whites is $9,792 higher than that of the blacks. Both ED and WHITE are significant predictors of INCOME based

on the t-statistics. The coefficient for ED in the MRM is lower than the coefficient in the OLS model ($6,314).

This suggests that while an increase of one year of education gives rise to an average increase of $6,314 in

income, the increase would not be as substantial for most of the population. Similarly, the coefficient for

white in the MRM is lower than the corresponding coefficient in the OLS model ($11,452).

. test ed white

( 1)

( 2)

. There is sufficient

evidence to say that ED and WHITE are jointly significant predictors of

INCOME.

ed = 0

white = 0

F(

2, 22621) = 1589.34

Prob > F =

0.0000

ED

WHITE

CONS

.05

1130

3197

.10

1782

4689

.20

2757

6557

.25

3172

6724

.30

3571

7541

.40

4266

8744

.50

4794

9792

.60

5571

11091

.70

6224

11739

.75

6598

12142

.80

6954

12972

.90

8279

14049

.95

9575

17484

-7910

-13536

-20721

- 22986

-25590

-29104

-29928

-33090

-32909

-32344

-30702

-27562

-22126

We see that one more year of education can increase income by $1,782 at the .10th quantile and $1,130 at

the .05 th quantile. Examining the estimates of education at the .90 th and .95th quantiles, the coefficient for

the .95th quantile is $9,575, much larger than at the .90 th quantile ($8,279). These results suggest the

contribution of prestigious higher education to income disparity.

(fitting base model)

(bootstrapping ....................)

Simultaneous quantile regression

bootstrap(20) SEs

Number of obs

.10 Pseudo R2

.25 Pseudo R2

.50 Pseudo R2

.75 Pseudo R2

.90 Pseudo R2

Bootstrap

Std. Err.

income

Coef.

ed

white

_cons

1782.333

4688.667

-13536

59.18355

300.6245

715.7417

ed

white

_cons

3172.222

6723.666

-22985.67

ed

white

_cons

=

=

=

=

=

=

22624

0.0441

0.0726

0.0985

0.1141

0.1208

P>|t|

30.12

15.60

-18.91

0.000

0.000

0.000

1666.329

4099.422

-14938.9

1898.337

5277.912

-12133.1

45.30373

541.5137

814.5297

70.02

12.42

-28.22

0.000

0.000

0.000

3083.424

5662.262

-24582.2

3261.021

7785.07

-21389.13

4794.333

9792.334

-29927.67

51.30182

565.642

570.7646

93.45

17.31

-52.43

0.000

0.000

0.000

4693.778

8683.637

-31046.4

4894.888

10901.03

-28808.93

ed

white

_cons

6598.182

12141.82

-32344.18

169.8196

827.9499

1995.658

38.85

14.66

-16.21

0.000

0.000

0.000

6265.324

10518.98

-36255.81

6931.04

13764.66

-28432.55

ed

white

_cons

8278.88

14049.07

-27561.84

224.7802

1900.115

3388.43

36.83

7.39

-8.13

0.000

0.000

0.000

7838.295

10324.71

-34203.39

8719.465

17773.43

-20920.28

q10

q25

q50

q75

q90

. test [q10]ed=[q90]ed

( 1)

[q10]ed - [q90]ed = 0

F(

1, 22621) =

Prob > F =

780.16

0.0000

. test [q10]white=[q90]white

( 1)

[q10]white - [q90]white = 0

F(

1, 22621) =

Prob > F =

14.71

0.0001

and

( 1)

( 2)

[q10]ed - [q90]ed = 0

[q10]white - [q90]white = 0

F(

2, 22621) =

Prob > F =

395.42

0.0000

The effect of an additional year of education is different for the lower-income bracket and the higher-income

bracket. Likewise, the effect of being white is also different for the lower-income bracket and the higherincome bracket. The joint effect of ED and WHITE is also significant i.e. the effect of an addditional year of

schooling and being white at the .10th quantile differs from the effect at the .90th quantile.

2000

4000

6000

ed

8000

10000

Shape Shifts

.2

.4

.6

.8

income quantile brought about by one additional year of

education, at any level of education, fixing race. The

education effect is significantly positive, because the

confidence envelope does not cross the horizontal zero

line. The graph shows an upward-sloping curve for the

effects of education: the effect of one more year of

schooling is positive for all values of p and steadily

increasing with p. The increase accelerates after

the .80th quantile.

Quantile

25000

0

5000

white

10000 15000

20000

income quantile brought about by changing the race from

black to white, fixing the education level. The effect of

being white is significantly positive, as the zero line is far

below the confidence envelope. The graph shows an

upward-sloping curve for the effect of being white as

compared with being black. The slopes below the .15 th

quantile and above the .90th quantile are steeper than

those at the middle quantiles.

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

Quantile

The estimate is monotonically increasing with p. This tells us that an additional year of education or changing

race from black to white has a greater effect on income for higher-income brackets than for lower-income

brackets. The monotonicity also has scale-effect implications. Changing race from black to white or adding a

year of education increases the scale of the response.

pth Interquantile Range

SCS (ED)

SCS (WHITE)

0.25:

3426

5418

0.10:

6497

9360

0.05:

8445

14287

The scale shift brought about by one more year of schooling for the middle 50% of the population is $3,426.

One more year of schooling increases the scale of income by $6,497 for the middle 80% of the population, and

by $8,445 for the middle 90% of the population. Controlling for education, whites income spread is higher

than blacks income spread by: $5,418 for the middle 50% of the population, $9,360 for the middle 80%, and

$14,287 for the middle 90%.

Note: The

population

middle 50% (p=0.25)

SKS (ED)

SKS (WHITE)

-0.047

-0.087

-0.037

-0.085

-0.016

-0.066

One more year of schooling reduces right-skewness by 1.6% for the middle 90% of the population, 3.7% for

the middle 80% and 4.7% for the middle 50%. The impact of being white also decreases right-skewness by 6.6%

for the middle 90%, 8.5% for the middle 80% and 8.7% for the middle 50%. This finding indicates a greater

expansion of the white upper middle class than the black upper middle class.

Summary:

One more year of education induces a positive location and scale shift but a negative skewness shift. Similarly,

being white induces a positive location and scale shift with a negative skewness shift. The model suggests that

while higher education and being white are associated with a higher median income and a wider income

spread, the income distributions for the less educated and for the blacks are more skewed.

Example 2:

Murders number of murders per 1,000,000 inhabitants per annum

Inhabitants number of inhabitants

Income Percentage of families with incomes below $5000

Unemp Percentage of unemployed inhabitants

MODEL murders = inhabitants income unemp/quantile = 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.95 plot =

quantplot;

TEST inhabitants income unemp/ wald lr;

RUN;

Note: If we consider all quantiles, the rank option for computing confidence intervals is not available. (You

may use only sparsity and resampling.) Likewise, it is not possible to use Wald and Likelihood Ratio Tests.

0.05

0.10

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.90

0.95

Intercept

-58.38

-58.38

-59.91

-39.30

-37.18

-46.68

-67.90

-86.95

-76.14

-103.34

-103.42

-104.40

-164.52

Inhabitants

income

unemp

1.96

1.96

1.88

0.72

0.63

1.22

1.86

3.28

3.05

5.07

5.07

5.03

9.41

0.86

4.36

0.86

4.36

1.12

4.04

1.53

2.44

1.34

2.76

1.44

2.88

1.39

5.06

1.26

5.46

1.10

5.08

1.04

5.25

1.04

5.26

1.12

5.31

1.06

5.72

An additional inhabitant will increase the median number of murders by 1.86; a unit increase in the

percentage of families with incomes below $5000 will increase the median number of murders by 1.39; a unit

increase in the percentage of unemployed inhabitants will increase the median number of murders by 5.06.

Ho:

Test Results

Quantile Test

0.05

Wald

955.7538

955.75

<.0001

0.10

Wald

144.0549

144.05

<.0001

0.10

309.54

<.0001

0.20

Wald

60.6047

60.60

<.0001

0.20

45.29

<.0001

0.30

Wald

55.0154

55.02

<.0001

0.30

33.00

<.0001

0.40

Wald

32.7730

32.77

<.0001

0.40

37.22

<.0001

0.50

Wald

58.0711

58.07

<.0001

0.50

37.88

<.0001

0.60

Wald

96.7067

96.71

<.0001

0.60

36.74

<.0001

0.70

Wald

139.95

<.0001

0.70

24.65

<.0001

0.80

Wald

233.48

<.0001

139.9484

233.4782

Test Results

Quantile Test

0.80

31.72

<.0001

0.90

Wald

1267.92

<.0001

0.90

26.35

<.0001

0.95

Wald

978.71

<.0001

1267.9173

978.7139

For all quantiles in consideration, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the number of inhabitants, the

percentage of families with incomes below $5000, and the percentage of unemployed inhabitants are jointly

significant predictors of the number of murders.

PROC QUANTREG DATA = sample CI = rank;

MODEL murders = inhabitants income unemp/quantile = 0.75 0.8;

TEST inhabitants income unemp/qinteract;

RUN;

Test Results Equal Coefficients

Across Quantiles

Chi-Square

DF Pr > ChiSq

0.0056

0.9999

Thus, there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that the coefficents for the 0.75 th and the 0.8 th quantile

jointly differ.

Shape Shifts

The effect of inhabitants on the number of murders is only significant from around the 0.5 th quantile onwards.

The effect of income on the number of murders is only significant until somewhere around the 0.7 th quantile.

The effect of the unemployment on the number of murders is only significant until somewhere around the

0.5th quantile. Thus, the lower quantiles of income and unemployment significantly affect the number of

murders while the upper quantiles of the number of inhabitants significantly affect the number of murders.

Scale Shifts

pth interquartile

range

0.25:

0.10:

0.05:

SCS(inhabitants)

SCS(income)

SCS(unemp)

4.3518

3.0699

7.455

-0.4872

0.2602

0.2017

2.8115

0.9506

1.3628

An additional inhabitant increases the scale of the number of murders by 4.3518 for the middle 50% of the

population, by 3.0699 for the middle 80% of the population, and by 7.455 for the middle 90% of the

population. A unit increase in the percentage of families with incomes below $5000 decreases the scale of the

number of murders by 0.4872 for the middle 50% of the population, while it increases the scale of the number

of murders by 0.2602 for the middle 80% of the population, and by 0.2017 for the middle 90% of the

population. A unit increase in the percentage of unemployed inhabitants increases the scale of the number of

murders by 2.8115 for the middle 50% of the population, by 0.9506 for the middle 80% of the population, and

by 1.3628 for the middle 90% of the population.

Skewness Shifts

middle 100(1-2p)% of

the population

middle 50% (p=0.25)

middle 80% (p=0.10)

middle 90% (p=0.05)

SKS(inhabitants)

-0.50852

0.100869

0.520159

SKS(income)

0.114957637

-0.465156696

-0.403896185

SKS(unemp)

-0.73607

-0.44369

-0.36112

An additional inhabitant reduces the right-skewness by 50.9% for the middle 50% of the population, while it

increases the right-skewness by 10.1% for the middle 80% and by 52% for the middle 90%. A unit increase in

the percentage of families with incomes below $5000 increases the right-skewness by 11.5% for the middle 50%

of the population, while it reduces the right-skewness by 46.5% for the middle 80% and by 40.4% for the

middle 90%. A unit increase in the percentage of unemployed inhabitants reduces the right-skewness by 73.6%

for the middle 50% of the population, by 44.4% for the middle 80%, and by 36.1% for the middle 90%.

- BMD in PVM KN Per mUploaded byShashank Babu
- Encyclopedia of Social Science Research MethodsUploaded bymedeea32
- Gender Pay Gab_AustraliaUploaded byjavilo2000
- Comparacion AADEE_AVL Version Ingles NewUploaded byShereen Salah
- HouUploaded byShahid Shafiq
- Gretl eBookUploaded bydickie_hardiansyah
- thesis_7_28_07Uploaded byChirag Borkar
- Bs Project Grp 8Uploaded byRia George Kallumkal
- EWCOR_12Uploaded byNaheed Nazneen TuLi
- Linear RegressionUploaded byswat700
- Dams DufloUploaded bymanosmill
- 4. Chapter 4 Demand Estimation (1)Uploaded bydelisyaaamily
- Flow of Statistical Analysis_Full VersionUploaded bymasoom91
- Cheat SheetUploaded byshaziadurrani
- bgpe_2_olsUploaded bymonoid
- Applied Regression Analysis (Juran) SP2016Uploaded bydarwin12
- FooledUploaded byAnonymous zTqxnCKrl
- 2016 StatisticsUploaded byDanish Raza
- VarUploaded byJawhar Bacha
- econometrics ii july 2016.pdfUploaded byGodson
- Heckman Selection ModelsUploaded byrbmalasa
- zelig.pdfUploaded byraversyd
- skittles project3Uploaded byapi-405527325
- Normas Chilenas Figura compleja de ReyUploaded byFabián Vidal Lavoz
- Elements Econometrics Study GuideUploaded byOrlando Penicela Júnior
- Regression Solved ExampleUploaded bytauqeerahmed
- Aylwin Yafele Thesis 2012 Final SubmissionUploaded byMiguel Serrano
- Pugh-Matthew.pdfUploaded byAdolfo Cordova
- 3eb099dc0435849cd0345c2cf7bae8d34470Uploaded byKhadija Lakssoumi
- Statistiques appliquées à la géotechniqueUploaded byYahya Ber

- Crude Oil Viscosity Correlations a Novel Approach for Upper Assam Basin, Deepak Jain, 2014Uploaded byAnonymous Xy309m9Sm9
- Trend MortalityUploaded byIndira Pratiwi
- RigNotes15.pdfUploaded byWazzupWorld
- Stat 2: Building Models for a World of Data (Chapter 0)Uploaded byThư Tỉn
- RI_H2_MATH_P2Uploaded byjimmytanlimlong
- Impact of Performance Appraisal and Work Motivation on Work Performance ofEmployee: With Special Reference to A MultiSpecialtyHospital in KeralaUploaded byIOSRjournal
- Chave Gcb14Uploaded byWAHYU CATUR Adinugroho
- 1471-2458-11-261Uploaded byaamir
- Akbar pptUploaded byFaisal Shamim
- Multiple Regression [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded bySpandana Achanta
- MUSA MethodUploaded byRahmaniyah Dwi Astuti
- Tutorial - Get Running With AMOS GraphicsUploaded byTiago Zortea
- Kao Chiang Chen (1999) International r&d Spillovers an Application of Estimation and Inference in Panel CointegrationUploaded byAlejandro Granda Sandoval
- Using EViews for Principles of Econometrics, Carter HillUploaded byNaila Mehboob
- Practice Final Exam S13Uploaded byKe Syukuran Ku
- Zero-Order Monod Model for Christensen and Larsen MethodUploaded byAtom12
- CorrelationUploaded byeric
- TG.momentum, AccelerationUploaded byAlexandreLega
- Statistical Based Method Data Mining AlgorithmUploaded byELIZABETH
- ExamW07.pdfUploaded byJamie Samuel
- Final Exam Excel StatisticsUploaded byEliott Sanchez
- Cost Accounting - CopyUploaded bysilll92
- Research ProposalUploaded byHamdan Yuafi
- ijaar-sms-v2n8-aug16-p1Uploaded byHasan Basri
- Gold Price and financial stabilityUploaded byKartik Patel
- Quantile RegressionUploaded byHassaanAhmad
- Particle Gibbs for Bayesian Additive Regression TreesUploaded byKevin P
- Heteroscedasticity- What Happens When ErrorUploaded byswm101
- SPSS IntroductionUploaded byGarrison Doreck
- Corporate Governance Effects on Social Responsibility DisclosuresUploaded byfidelaluthfiana

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.