1 views

Uploaded by Iam Ibad

mnhu

save

You are on page 1of 11

William Greene

Stern School of Business, New York University

Lab Session 4

Part 1. Conditional Logit and Nested Logit Models

=====================================================================

This assignment will consist of some simple exercises with the multinomial logit model. The

data for the exercises is

MultinomialChoice.lpj

This project file contains both the brand choices data used in the first set of exercises and the

travel mode data used later. Altogether, there are 12,800 observations in the brand choices data.

The travel mode data appear in the first 840 rows of the data area.

=====================================================================

**1. Test for functional form of utility functions. The discrete choice model we will use in this
**

exercise is

U(brand) = β1Fashion + β2Quality + β3Price + β4ASC4 + εbrand,

for brand = brand1, brand2, brand3 and none. Fashion, Quality and Price are all zero for NONE,

while ASCNONE is 1 for NONE and zero for the others. This is a convenient way to consider

the ‘none of the above’ choice. We are interested in testing the hypothesis that the price enters

the utility function quadratically, rather than linearly. Thus, we test for significance of an

additional variable, PriceSq = Price2. The commands below can carry out the test. What do you

find?

**? Test for significance of squared term
**

CLOGIT ; Lhs = Choice ; Choices=Brand1,Brand2,Brand3,None

; Rhs = Fash,Qual,Price,Asc4 $

CALC ; L0 = logl $

CLOGIT ; Lhs = Choice ; Choices=Brand1,Brand2,Brand3,None

; Rhs = Fash,Qual,Price,Pricesq,Asc4 $

CALC ; L1 = logl $

CALC ; list ; chisq = 2*(L1 - L0) $

**2. Structural change. Are men’s preferences the same as women’s? We carry out the
**

equivalent of a Chow test for structural change. What do you find. Is the null hypothesis: H0: βM

= β W for the vector of parameters in the model rejected or not?

SAMPLE ; All $

CLOGIT ; For[Male = 0] ; Lhs = Choice ; Choices=Brand1,Brand2,Brand3,None

; Rhs = Fash,Qual,Price,Asc4 $

CALC ; LoglF = LogL $

MATRIX ; db = b ; dv = varb $

CLOGIT ; For[ Male = 1] ; Lhs = Choice ; Choices=Brand1,Brand2,Brand3,None

; Rhs = Fash,Qual,Price,Asc4 $

CALC ; LoglM = LogL $

MATRIX ; db = db - b ; dv = dv + varb $

CLOGIT ; Lhs = Choice ; Choices=Brand1,Brand2,Brand3,None

; Rhs = Fash,Qual,Price,Asc4 $

CALC ; LoglMF = LogL $

Price. What would happen to the market shares if the prices of all three brands rose by 50% ? ? 4. What would happen to the market shares of the three brands ? If the price of Brand 1 of shoes rose by 50%.Brand3. Rhs = Fash.8) $ ? Wald test MATRIX .Brand2.Asc4 .None . All $ CLOGIT . one wouldn’t think so.None .Qual. List .Brand2.None . Impact of a price change.5 $ CLOGIT .Qual.Qual.Asc4 $ CLOGIT . Choices=Brand1.Price. What are the estimates of the own and cross elasticities across the three brands? What is the evidence of the IIA assumption in these results? ? 3.LOGLMF) . Effects : Price (*) $ CLOGIT . List . Carry out the Hausman to test the IIA assumption using Brand 3 as the omitted alternative. Rhs = Fash.Asc4 . Choices=Brand1.5 $ 5.Asc4 .None .95. Is Brand3 an irrelevant alternative in the choice model? Given the way the data are constructed. Examine the marginal effect of price on brand choice SAMPLE .Price. Lhs = Choice .None . Lhs = Choice . Chisq = 2*(LoglM + LogLF . Testing for IIA ? SAMPLE . All $ CLOGIT . Simulation = * . What would happen to the market shares of the three brands if the price of Brand 1 of shoes rose by 50%. Choices=Brand1. Ctb(.Price. Lhs = Choice .Brand3.Brand3) = [*] 1.Brand2.Brand2.Brand3.Brand2. Rhs = Fash.Qual. Marginal Effects.Brand3.Qual.Asc4 . Simulation = * . What would ? happen to the market shares if the prices of all three ? brands rose by 50%? ? SAMPLE .Price. Scenario: Price (Brand1) = [*] 1.Brand2. Rhs = Fash.Brand2.Qual.None . Lhs = Choice . Lhs = Choice . What do you find? ? ? 5. Scenario: Price (Brand1. Choices=Brand1. Lhs = Choice . All $ CLOGIT . Choices=Brand1. We estimate a marginal effect (of price) in the MNL model.? Likelihood Ratio Test CALC .Asc4 . Effects : Price (*) $ 4. Choices=Brand1. Testing for IIA. Rhs = Fash.Price.Brand3. IAS = Brand3 $ .Brand3. Wald = db'<dv>db $ 3. Rhs = Fash. Here we investigate.

Brand2. Rhs = Fash.None . Do men pay more attention to fashioni than women? To investigate. Rhs = Fash. Simulation = * .Qual.Qual.None . Choices = Brand1. Then. Effects: Price(Brand1. Choices = Brand1.Qual.MaleFash . Test the hypothesis that the variances in the four utility functions are all equal.5:7) . Lhs = Choice . Functional form and marginal impact.Qual.age39 . WaldStat = c'<vc>c $ . fit the basic MNL model.Brand3.Brand2. vc = Varb(5:7.6.Qual. Heteroscedastic extreme value model. What do you find? ? ? 8.Price. simulate the model so as to see what happens when the variable which carries this effect into the model is zero’d out.Brand2. obtain the marginal effects with respect to price. Rhs = Fash. Par $ MATRIX .Brand2. Scenario: MaleFash(*) = [*] 0 $ 7. Effects: Price(Brand1. Since one of them is normalized to one. we fit the choice model with a different coefficient on fashion for men and women.ASC4 .Brand2.ASC4 . Rhs = Fash. Effects: Price(Brand1.None .Price.Brand2. Building heterogeneity into the model ? NLOGIT (none) . Het . Het . Hfn = Male.age25.None . Lhs = Choice . allow the variances to vary. What are the results? How do you interpret your findings? ? ? 6. allow the variances to vary across utililties and with age and sex. Choices=Brand1. Lhs = Choice . Choices=Brand1. Carry out the test using the brand choice data. Fit the MNL model while allowing the variancwes to differ across the utiity functions. Rhs = Fash.Price. Lhs = Choice . In NLOGIT’s HEV model. Het . In each case.Brand2. Choices = Brand1.Price.Brand3) $ NLOGIT (variance.ASC4 .Brand3) $ 8.Qual. Then. MaleFash = Male*Fash $ CLOGIT . Lhs = Choice .Brand2.Brand3.Brand2.ASC4 . Does the change in the model specification produce changes in the impacts? ? ? 7.None .Asc4. Do men pay different attention to fashion than women? ? Is the difference statistically significant? ? Create . Finally. c = b(5:7) . this is done by testing whether the first J-1 are equal.Asc4. Choices = Brand1.Price.None . het) . Testing for homoscedasticity with a Wald test ? NLOGIT (het) .MaleFash $ CLOGIT . First.Brand3.Price. the first set of values reported are (σj/σJ – 1). Constraints.Brand3.Brand3.Brand3) $ NLOGIT (het) . List . Rhs = Fash.Brand3. Lhs = Choice . so the desired test can be carried out by testing the hypothesis that these three (J-1) coefficients are zero.

Rhs = Fash. 1 – 840 $ You can see the number of observations in the current sample at the top of the project window. be sure that you are only using the first 840 rows in the combined data set.9. LOGLU = LOGL $ 2. ? ? 1. Are age and sex significant determinants of the variances in the utility functions.Public(Train.None . Lhs = Choice . Het $ CALC .Qual. Testing for heterogeneity in the heteroscedasticity ? NLOGIT (het) . you can just issue the sample command to reset the sample. Lhs = Choice .3) $ ===================================================================== This part of the assignment will use the mode choice. List . het) . Lhs = Mode . Nested logit model.Brand2. Het .ASC4 . There is no way to test the specification as a hypothesis.Train. We begin with a simple nested logit model. Hfn = Male. Ctb(.Qual.Brand3. These are different formulations of the model. Testing for variance heterogeneity. Choices=Air. Which is the appropriate to use is up to the analyst. as shown below.Price.Brand3.GC.INVT. The command to set this data set is SAMPLE . Choices = Brand1. .Brand2. LogLR = LogL $ NLOGIT (variance. Show Tree $ CALC .TTME.Car).95.INVC . Basic nested logit ? NLOGIT . Rhs = Fash.Car . Test the hypothesis that they are not using a likelihood ratio test.LogLR) . LoglU = LogL $ CALC .age39 $ CALC .Bus. If this value is not 840 at any time.Bus) .ASC4 .None . In what follows.age25.Price. Choices = Brand1. ===================================================================== 1. Tree = Private(Air. RU1 and RU2. They are not simple reparameterizations of the model. LRTest = 2*(LogLU . What do you find? ? ? 9. Rhs = One. so they will not give identical results in a finite sample. conditional logit data.

Are the results similar? ? ? 5. IVSET:(Private.Car .GC. Rhs = One.Train. Rhs = One.TTME.Ground(Car. List . This will allow a different scale parameter in each branch.GC. HET . Choices=Air. Rhs = One. Rhs = One.Car). The HEV model is another way to do this. Choices=Air.Car . Lhs = Mode .Bus. Degenerate branch.TTME.Ground(Car. LOGLR = LOGL $ CALC . A branch that contains only one alternative is labeled ‘degenerate’ (for reasons lost to antiquity).Car).Drive(Car). Lhs = Mode .TTME.LOGLR) $ 4. RU2 . ? NLOGIT .INVC . Choices=Air.1.GC.Bus. Choices=Air.Train. Constrained nested logit model.ST. Different normalization ? NLOGIT . Rhs = One.Bus) .INVC . Choices=Air.INVT.Rail(Train).Car . Use nested logit to reveal scaling.SC $ .Bus.INVC . Constrain IV parameters to produce MNL model ? NLOGIT .INVC .0.Car .Bus. Lhs = Mode .Bus. Lhs = Mode .INVC . The nested logit model can be modified to act like the heteroscedastic extreme value buy making all branches contain one alternative.TTME. Lhs = Mode . LRTEST = 2*(LOGLU .Train. CrossTab$ 3. ? ? 3. Alternative approaches to reveal scaling. Note that this specification test is whether the MNL is appropriate.GC. Degenerate branch. Use this device to test the restriction.TTME.INVT. against the alternative of the nested logit model. Choices=Air.Train.GC. Par $ NLOGIT . Tree = Private(Air.Bus) . IVSET: (Ride) = [1] . Lhs = Mode .Bus.Car .INVT. Tree = Fly(Air). Tree = Fly(Air).Public(Train. Constraining the IV parameters to equal 1 returns the original multinomial logit model. RU2 $ 5.INVT.Public)=[1] $ CALC . ? ? 4.Train. Fit the two and examine the effect.GC.Public(Train.Bus) . Rhs = One. Two normalizations ? NLOGIT .? ? 2.INVT.Train.Ride(Bus) . SDV = SA.Car .INVT.Train.INVC . Tree = Fly(Air).TTME. The RU1 and RU2 normalizations produce different results for such models. Tree = Private(Air.Train.Bus) $ NLOGIT .

These models are not nested. Choices=Air. We use a Vuong test. Examine the impact of the heteroscedasticity on the marginal effect of IN VEHICLE TIME (INVT).INVT. Fit an HEV model with these data.95. List . Effects: INVT(*) $ CALC . Rhs = One.Bus. We fit each model.Train.GC.Bus. we retrieve LogLi. The GNL model is a fairly exotic formulation (not yet in the mainstream) of the nested logit model in which alternatives may appear in more than one branch. allowing the variances of the utilities to differ across alternatives.6. Income effect on mode choice model model. Choices = Air.Car . We fit one here. then for each. Use a likelihood ratio test to test for equal variances. The Vuong statistic is computed by first obtaining .INVC. Tree = Fast(Air. ? ? 6. The initial random utility model has Uij = β1TTMEij + β2INVCij + β3INVTij + β 4GCij + αj + δjIncomei + εij where Var[εij] = σ2.Train). ? ? 7.GC. beyond the underlying models. LRTEST = 2*(LU . is fairly uncomplicated.Train. Ctb(. Homoscedastic vs. Though there are.3) $ This assignment involves a sampling of latent class models. we will fit a handful of latent class models to different kinds of choice variables. LU = LogL $ CALC . latent class modeling. Generalized nested logit model. so we cannot use a likelihood ratio test to test one against the other.Car .GC. That is. HEV Model. Rhs = TTME. of course. In this exercise.INVC .One . or the variances? We will use a Vuong test to explore the question.Public(Train. latent class modeling involves a small number of straightforward principles. the contribution of each individual to the log likelihood.One . LR = LogL $ NLOGIT . A Generalized Nested Logit Model ? NLOGIT . The second form of the model is Uij = β1TTMEij + β2INVCij + β3INVTij + β 4GCij + αj + εij where Var[εij] = σj2 × exp(γ Incomei). itself. the same for all utilities. Lhs = Mode . Does income affect the means in the utility functions of the mode choice model. and leave the interpretation of the resulting model to the analyst. Rhs = TTME.Car.Bus.Car .INVT. Lhs = Mode .Bus) .INVT.LR). Choices = Air. Het .Train. instead. The model allocates a portion of the alternative to the various branches. GNL $ 7. many aspects of the underlying models. 8.TTME.INVC. Effects: INVT(*) $ CALC . Heteroscedastic Extreme Value ? NLOGIT . Lhs = Mode .

Train. What do you conclude? ? ? 8.Bus. respectively. Note. Hfn = HINC $ CREATE .Train.one . NLOGIT stores the individual log likelihoods with the last alternative.LogLVar $ REJECT . LoglVar = Logl_Obs $ CREATE .Car . Large positive values (using 1.INVT.Hinc $ CREATE .Heterogeneous. Het . We then compute the Vuong statistic.INVT. CASC = 0 $ CALC . List .GC. LOGLMean = Logl_Obs $ NLOGIT .INVC.INVC. Choices = Air. Lhs = Mode . large negative values favor the alternative hypothesis. V = LoglMean . Rhs = TTME. Choices = Air. so it is a convenient device to restrict our sample to the observations we want for our computation.LogLi1 where LogLi0 and LogLi1 are the contributions to the log likelihood for the null model and the alternative model.Bus. for a MNL model with J alternatives. n m V= sm The limiting distribution of the Voung statistic is standard normal. Carry out the test. The CASC variable is a dummy variable which equals one for the CAR alternative. Does Income affect the means or the variances? ? SAMPLE . Rh2=One. Vuong = sqr(n) * xbr(v) / sdv(v) $ .96 for 95% confidence) favor the null hypothesis.GC. Rhs = TTME.Car . All $ NLOGIT . in the calculations below. Lhs = Mode . in this case CAR. mi = LogLi0 .

The first part of the assignment will use the mode choice.Part 2.800 observations for the brand choices data. Do the multinomial logit and multinomial probit models give similar results? You can’t tell directly from the coefficient estimates because of scaling and normalization.800 observations in the brand choices data.INVC. so we have set it up with a very small number of replications and stopped the iterations at 25. Fit a multinomial probit and a multinomial logit model. be sure that you are only using the first 840 rows in the combined data set. Rhs = TTME. estimation of the MNP model is extremely slow. Lhs = Mode . The data for the exercises is MultinomialChoice. Multinomial probit model. so you have to rely on other indicators such as marginal effects.Bus. Note. and compare the results. All $ and the sample setting will revert to the 12.GC. there are 12. When you wish to use the brand choices data in the second part of the assignment. In what follows. Multinomial Probit Model ? NLOGIT .INVT. Choices = Air. If this value is not 840 at any time. This particular model would take 30-50 iterations to finish. conditional logit data. as shown below. The command to set this data set is SAMPLE . ? ? 1. Effects:GC(*) $ . The travel mode data appear in the first 840 rows of the data area. Rh2=One. use the command SAMPLE .Car . you can just issue the sample command to reset the sample. ===================================================================== ===================================================================== 1. Latent Class and Random Parameter Models ===================================================================== This assignment will consist of some simple exercises with the multinomial logit model. 1 – 840 $ You can see the number of observations in the current sample at the top of the project window.Train. Altogether.lpj This project file contains both the travel mode choices data used in the first set of exercises and the brand choices data used later.Hinc .

INVT. 1.None .Age39 .Hinc .INVC. First. Class probabilities depend on covariates ? Nlogit .ASC4 .None .Price(n) .Price. Be sure that the sample setting uses all the data. LCM . Then. Rhs = Fash.Age25. Lhs = Choice . The true model ? underlying the data has three classes Nlogit .ASC4 . logl1 = logl $ CALC . Lhs = Mode . Pts = 25 $ CALC . We also test the null hypothesis that the parameters are nonrandom. Lhs = Choice . fit a simple three class model with constant class probabilities. we explore what happens when the model is over fit by fitting a four class model. Rhs = TTME. PTS = 10 . Choices=Brand1.Price. Choices=Brand1. LCM=Male.None . Pds = 8 .ASC4 .GC. Rh2=One. Halton .None . with three classes.Brand3. Pds = 8 . Finally.Price. logl0 = logl $ Nlogit . fit the same model. 4 class model. Note that in these simulated data. ? ? (4) Random parameters model ? Nlogit . Use SAMPLE .Car . NLOGIT . Lhs = Choice . RPL .Brand3. Random parameters models.Qual. since we know that the true model is a three class model.Qual. Fcn= Fash(n). Choices = Air. LCM .ASC4 .Qual. the true underlying model really is a latent class data generating mechanishm. Latent class model for brand choice. Choices=Brand1.Price.Brand2. chisq = 2*(logl1 – logl0) $ .Brand3. MNP .ASC4 $ CALC .Train. ? Nlogit . Lhs = Choice . Pts = 4 $ 3.Brand2. All $ to set the sample correctly. Pds = 8 .Brand2.Brand3. ? ? (1) Basic 3 class model. Rhs = Fash.Price. We fit two specifications of a random parameters model. Lhs = Choice . Rhs = Fash. List .Qual.None . Choices=Brand1. Pts = 3 $ ? ? (3) Overspecified model. Pts = 3 $ ? ? (2) 3 class model.Bus. Effects:GC(*) $ The next set of computations is based on the brand choices data. Pds = 8 . Maxit = 25 .Brand2.Brand2.Qual. but allow the class probabilities to very with age and sex. Rhs = Fash. Choices=Brand1.Brand3. Rhs = Fash.

ASC4 . The data set is also complicated by having the choice sets vary across individuals.Brand2.RPBS. The same person is observed 8 times in each choice situation. Fit the simple brand choice model with the addition of a person specific random effect. ? ? (5) An Error Components Logit model ? ECLOGIT .1. with each individual choosing from a possibly different subset of the master choice set.lpj data set. ? */ NLOGIT .SPRS.lim. you need only load the sprp. 1.SPBS.SPTN.0.Brand3. Then. 1. To carry out the assignment. ? Numerous other variables in the data set are not used here. we will take advantage of the fact that this is a panel. Choices = Brand1. as shown by weights.SPBW /.0. interpret your estimated model. 1. To speed this up.tree=Commute [ rp (RPDA.How many degrees of freedom are there for this test? Is the null hypothesis rejected? 2.. we use only 10 points in the simulation estimator.SPDA. then execute the command set below. .choices=RPDA..111.cset.Qual.RPRS.0 .089. sprs(SPRS).RPTN).RPBS.Brand3).0. Pts = 10 .lhs=chosen. Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data This short assignment consists of estimation of a model using a data set that combines stated and revealed preference data. Rhs = Fash. /* ? ? Data for this application are in SPRP. The specification below embodies many of the more advanced features of the conditional logit model.RPRS. Lhs = Choice .SPLR.altij .Brand2. examine the estimates of the model components to see how the specification has (or has not) captured the important features of this data set.1.(none) $ Part 3.RPTN. Error Components logit model. The different scaling needed to accommodate the two parts of the data set is built into the model by using a nested logit specification.0.LPJ ? ? Application of revealed/stated preference data ? Uses nested logit to handle scaling. ECM = (Brand1.208. for purpose of the exercise. ? Choice variable is CHOSEN ? Number of choices in choice set is CSET ? Specific choices from master set given by ALTIJ ? FCOST = fuel cost ? AUTOTIME = time spent commuting by car.Price.. including the nesting with degenerate branches to reveal the scaling and choice based sampling in the revealed preference data. which is replicated in LabAssignment-10. Pds = 8 .sptn(SPTN).spbs(SPBS). 1.592. Note that here. ? Sample is also choice based.None .0. After obtaining the estimates. spda(SPDA). so we assume that the effect does not change from one choice setting to the next.

splr(SPLR).model: U(RPDA) = rdasc + invc*fcost+tmrs*autotime / U(RPRS) = rrsasc + invc*fcost+tmrs*autotime / U(RPBS) = rbsasc + invc*mptrfare+mtpt*mptrtime/ U(RPTN) = cstrs*mptrfare+mtpt*mptrtime/ U(SPDA) = sdasc + invc*fueld + tmrs*time+cavda*carav / U(SPRS) = srsasc + invc*fueld + tmrs*time/? cavrs*carav/ U(SPBS) = invc*fared + mtpt*time +acegt*spacegtm/ U(SPTN) = stnasc + invc*fared + mtpt*time+acegt*spacegtm/ U(SPLR) = slrasc + invc*fared + mtpt*time+acegt*spacegtm/ U(SPBW) = sbwasc + invc*fared + mtpt*time+acegt*spacegtm$ .spbw(SPBW)] .maxit=150 .ru1 .ivset: (rp)=[1.0] .

- micecx2Uploaded bychrisignm
- Engle ArchUploaded byUy Krav
- Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 7Uploaded bysekar_smr
- Basu Et Al-2011-Genetic EpidemiologypaperUploaded byspaul4u
- Predictive Modeling Using RegressionUploaded byindhujha
- Environmental Pollution and responsible factors in the Mediterranean areaUploaded byInternational Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- Credit Scoring for VN Retail BankingUploaded byyesman2011
- Error analysis lecture 17Uploaded byOmegaUser
- DeBoer and Diamond 2006 Southwestern Naturalist 51 Pp181_190Uploaded bySouthernBC
- Infant Temperament and Maternal Sensitivity as Predictors of Attachment SecurityUploaded bybarelli
- Rising SugUploaded byJoe Ogle
- Lecture 4Uploaded byGuillermo Apaza
- Hidden Markov ModelUploaded byZaigham Sultan
- Recovery Paper-ijf Revised3Uploaded byoleg_oleg001
- AbelBaziraBigawa0860Final.pdfUploaded byJean-regis Nduwimana
- 'Beating the Odds' on the WASL, Revisited: Identifying Consistently Successful—and Struggling—SchoolsUploaded byWashington State Institute for Public Policy

- Peraturan Daerah Nomor 2 Tahun 2009 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Depok Tahun 2000-2010Uploaded byPUSTAKA Virtual Tata Ruang dan Pertanahan (Pusvir TRP)
- EquiUploaded byIam Ibad
- Peta Sebaran Perkebunan Kelapa Sawit Propinsi RiauUploaded byRizka Akmalia
- PERDA Kota Bekasi Nomor 13 Tahun 2011Uploaded bySlamet E. Kasmiyanto
- ColliersMarketReport1Q2012.pdfUploaded byIam Ibad
- Indikator-Kesejahteraan-Masyarakat-Provinsi-DKI-Jakarta-2014.pdfUploaded byIam Ibad

- Accuracy. Validity ReliabilityUploaded byAbrar Rahman
- t4003specialdistributions_16Uploaded byjay
- Business Statistics Project-Final VersionUploaded byAngelo Delle Piane
- Matemática - MatrizesUploaded bychristiano_tre3
- Amostragem - Copy.docxUploaded byCristóvão Sumbane
- Paper 3 Marcha NiñosUploaded byPaula Maldonado
- Tablas Militares Anexo(1)Uploaded byGustavo Martinez
- Solucion Al Apendice 2 Ejecrcicio 1.Docx Correccion.docx 22 de OctubreUploaded byJesús Rodriguez
- En Unce StaddcUploaded byAldo Ezequilla Ramirez
- Modelo de Riesgo ProporcionalUploaded byIvan Perez
- Precisão dos métodos refratométricos para análise de umidade em mel.docxUploaded byCristian Jose Cristofel
- EJERCICIOS DE ESTADISTICAUploaded byUriel Bautista Salvador
- Teorema de BayesUploaded byclau9414
- b Inferencia Bayesiana Do SternUploaded bycquina
- Unidad 7. Estadistica InferencialUploaded byMariano Pérez
- ASTM D 91 - 02Uploaded byEdwin Ramirez
- pg348Uploaded byLeonard Gonzalo Saavedra Astopilco
- Bioinformatic_2Uploaded byBharatbioinormaticshau
- Statistical Computing-data Science[Field of Study Code Mtsp(183)]AUploaded byTom
- Fundamentos de La EstadisticaUploaded byDalila Gonzalez
- Test Khi CarreUploaded byOthmane Aouinatou
- Quiz 2 Semana 6 Estadistica intento 1 y 2Uploaded byLoreLeón
- Relatorio Analise de CurvasUploaded bySara Juliana Vidigal
- DNVGL-RP-N103 2017 MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF MARINE OPERATIONS.pdfUploaded byDonVic
- Ejercicios Propuestos de SimulacionUploaded byJacqueline Jacky
- paper jeeUploaded byGaurav Soni
- Business Statistics TerminologiesUploaded byJordan P Hunter
- ESTADISTICA_INFERENCIALUploaded byKarlita Lazo
- Tabla de FrecuenciaUploaded byMario Saico
- Ordinary Least Squares Regression and Regression DiagnosticsUploaded byssheldon_222