% Generated by roxygen2: do not edit by hand
% Please edit documentation in R/p_function.r
\name{p_function}
\alias{p_function}
\alias{consonance_function}
\alias{confidence_curve}
\title{p-value or consonance function}
\usage{
p_function(
  model,
  ci_levels = c(0.25, 0.5, 0.75, emph = 0.95),
  exponentiate = FALSE,
  effects = "fixed",
  component = "all",
  keep = NULL,
  drop = NULL,
  verbose = TRUE,
  ...
)

consonance_function(
  model,
  ci_levels = c(0.25, 0.5, 0.75, emph = 0.95),
  exponentiate = FALSE,
  effects = "fixed",
  component = "all",
  keep = NULL,
  drop = NULL,
  verbose = TRUE,
  ...
)

confidence_curve(
  model,
  ci_levels = c(0.25, 0.5, 0.75, emph = 0.95),
  exponentiate = FALSE,
  effects = "fixed",
  component = "all",
  keep = NULL,
  drop = NULL,
  verbose = TRUE,
  ...
)
}
\arguments{
\item{model}{Statistical Model.}

\item{ci_levels}{Vector of scalars, indicating the different levels at which
compatibility intervals should be printed or plotted. In plots, these levels
are highlighted by vertical lines. It is possible to increase thickness for
one or more of these lines by providing a names vector, where the to be
highlighted values should be named \code{"emph"}, e.g
\code{ci_levels = c(0.25, 0.5, emph = 0.95)}.}

\item{exponentiate}{Logical, indicating whether or not to exponentiate the
coefficients (and related confidence intervals). This is typical for
logistic regression, or more generally speaking, for models with log or
logit links. It is also recommended to use \code{exponentiate = TRUE} for models
with log-transformed response values. \strong{Note:} Delta-method standard
errors are also computed (by multiplying the standard errors by the
transformed coefficients). This is to mimic behaviour of other software
packages, such as Stata, but these standard errors poorly estimate
uncertainty for the transformed coefficient. The transformed confidence
interval more clearly captures this uncertainty. For \code{compare_parameters()},
\code{exponentiate = "nongaussian"} will only exponentiate coefficients from
non-Gaussian families.}

\item{effects}{Should parameters for fixed effects (\code{"fixed"}), random
effects (\code{"random"}), or both (\code{"all"}) be returned? Only applies
to mixed models. May be abbreviated. If the calculation of random effects
parameters takes too long, you may use \code{effects = "fixed"}.}

\item{component}{Should all parameters, parameters for the conditional model,
for the zero-inflation part of the model, or the dispersion model be returned?
Applies to models with zero-inflation and/or dispersion component. \code{component}
may be one of \code{"conditional"}, \code{"zi"}, \code{"zero-inflated"}, \code{"dispersion"} or
\code{"all"} (default). May be abbreviated.}

\item{keep}{Character containing a regular expression pattern that
describes the parameters that should be included (for \code{keep}) or excluded
(for \code{drop}) in the returned data frame. \code{keep} may also be a
named list of regular expressions. All non-matching parameters will be
removed from the output. If \code{keep} is a character vector, every parameter
name in the \emph{"Parameter"} column that matches the regular expression in
\code{keep} will be selected from the returned data frame (and vice versa,
all parameter names matching \code{drop} will be excluded). Furthermore, if
\code{keep} has more than one element, these will be merged with an \code{OR}
operator into a regular expression pattern like this: \code{"(one|two|three)"}.
If \code{keep} is a named list of regular expression patterns, the names of the
list-element should equal the column name where selection should be
applied. This is useful for model objects where \code{model_parameters()}
returns multiple columns with parameter components, like in
\code{\link[=model_parameters.lavaan]{model_parameters.lavaan()}}. Note that the regular expression pattern
should match the parameter names as they are stored in the returned data
frame, which can be different from how they are printed. Inspect the
\verb{$Parameter} column of the parameters table to get the exact parameter
names.}

\item{drop}{See \code{keep}.}

\item{verbose}{Toggle warnings and messages.}

\item{...}{Arguments passed to or from other methods. Non-documented
arguments are \code{digits}, \code{p_digits}, \code{ci_digits} and
\code{footer_digits} to set the number of digits for the output.
\code{group} can also be passed to the \code{print()} method. See details
in \code{\link[=print.parameters_model]{print.parameters_model()}} and 'Examples' in
\code{\link[=model_parameters.default]{model_parameters.default()}}.}
}
\value{
A data frame with p-values and compatibility intervals.
}
\description{
Compute p-values and compatibility (confidence) intervals for
statistical models, at different levels. This function is also called
consonance function. It allows to see which estimates are compatible with
the model at various compatibility levels. Use \code{plot()} to generate plots
of the \emph{p} resp. \emph{consonance} function and compatibility intervals at
different levels.
}
\details{
\subsection{Compatibility intervals and continuous \emph{p}-values for different estimate values}{

\code{p_function()} only returns the compatibility interval estimates, not the
related \emph{p}-values. The reason for this is because the \emph{p}-value for a
given estimate value is just \code{1 - CI_level}. The values indicating the lower
and upper limits of the intervals are the related estimates associated with
the \emph{p}-value. E.g., if a parameter \code{x} has a 75\% compatibility interval
of \verb{(0.81, 1.05)}, then the \emph{p}-value for the estimate value of \code{0.81}
would be \code{1 - 0.75}, which is \code{0.25}. This relationship is more intuitive and
better to understand when looking at the plots (using \code{plot()}).
}

\subsection{Conditional versus unconditional interpretation of \emph{p}-values and intervals}{

\code{p_function()}, and in particular its \code{plot()} method, aims at re-interpreting
\emph{p}-values and confidence intervals (better named: \emph{compatibility} intervals)
in \emph{unconditional} terms. Instead of referring to the long-term property and
repeated trials when interpreting interval estimates (so-called "aleatory
probability", \emph{Schweder 2018}), and assuming that all underlying assumptions
are correct and met, \code{p_function()} interprets \emph{p}-values in a Fisherian way
as "\emph{continuous} measure of evidence against the very test hypothesis \emph{and}
entire model (all assumptions) used to compute it"
(\href{https://lesslikely.com/statistics/s-values/}{P-Values Are Tough and S-Values Can Help}).

This interpretation as a continuous measure of evidence against the test
hypothesis and the entire model used to compute it can be seen in the
figure below (taken from
\href{https://lesslikely.com/statistics/s-values/}{P-Values Are Tough and S-Values Can Help}).
The "conditional" interpretation of \emph{p}-values and interval
estimates (A) implicitly assumes certain assumptions to be true, thus the
interpretation is "conditioned" on these assumptions (i.e. assumptions are
taken as given). The unconditional interpretation (B), however, questions all
these assumptions.

\if{html}{\cr \figure{unconditional_interpretation.png}{options: alt="Conditional versus unconditional interpretations of P-values"} \cr}

"Emphasizing unconditional interpretations helps avoid overconfident and
misleading inferences in light of uncertainties about the assumptions used
to arrive at the statistical results." (\emph{Greenland et al. 2022}).

\strong{Note:} The term "conditional" as used by Rafi and Greenland probably has
a slightly different meaning than normally. "Conditional" in this notion
means that all model assumptions are taken as given - it should not be
confused with terms like "conditional probability".

In other words, the term compatibility interval emphasizes "the dependence
of the \emph{p}-value on the assumptions as well as on the data, recognizing that
\emph{p}<0.05 can arise from assumption violations even if the effect under
study is null" (\emph{Gelman/Greenland 2019}).
}

\subsection{Probabilistic interpretation of compatibility intervals}{

Schweder (2018) resp. Schweder and Hjort (2016) (and others) argue that
confidence curves (as produced by \code{p_function()}) have a valid probabilistic
interpretation. They distinguish between \emph{aleatory probability}, which
describes the aleatory stochastic element of a distribution \emph{ex ante}, i.e.
before the data are obtained. This is the classical interpretation of
confidence intervals following the Neyman-Pearson school of statistics.
However, there is also an \emph{ex post} probability, called \emph{epistemic} probability,
for confidence curves. The shift in terminology from \emph{confidence} intervals
to \emph{compatibility} intervals may help emphasizing this interpretation.

In this sense, the probabilistic interpretation of \emph{p}-values and
compatibility intervals is "conditional" - on the data \emph{and} model assumptions
(which is in line with the "unconditional" interpretation in the sense of
Rafi and Greenland).

"The realized confidence distribution is clearly an epistemic probability
distribution" (\emph{Schweder 2018}). In Bayesian words, compatibility intervals
(or confidence distributons, or consonance curves) are "posteriors without
priors" (\emph{Schweder, Hjort, 2003}). In this regard, interpretation of \emph{p}-values
might be guided using \code{\link[bayestestR:pd_to_p]{bayestestR::p_to_pd()}}.
}

\subsection{Compatibility intervals - is their interpretation conditional or not?}{

The fact that the term "conditional" is used in different meanings, is
confusing and unfortunate. Thus, we would summarize the probabilistic
interpretation of compatibility intervals as follows: The intervals are built
from the data \emph{and} our modeling assumptions. The accuracy of the intervals
depends on our model assumptions. If a value is outside the interval, that
might be because (1) that parameter value isn't supported by the data, or
(2) the modeling assumptions are a poor fit for the situation. When we make
bad assumptions, the compatibility interval might be too wide or (more
commonly and seriously) too narrow, making us think we know more about the
parameter than is warranted.
}
}
\note{
Curently, \code{p_function()} computes intervals based on Wald t- or z-statistic.
For certain models (like mixed models), profiled intervals may be more
accurate, however, this is currently not supported.
}
\examples{
model <- lm(Sepal.Length ~ Species, data = iris)
p_function(model)

if (requireNamespace("see") && packageVersion("see") > "0.7.3") {
  model <- lm(mpg ~ wt + as.factor(gear) + am, data = mtcars)
  result <- p_function(model)

  # single panels
  plot(result, n_columns = 2)

  # integrated plot, the default
  plot(result)
}
}
\references{
\itemize{
\item Fraser DAS. The P-value function and statistical inference. The American
Statistician. 2019;73(sup1):135-147. \doi{10.1080/00031305.2018.1556735}
\item Gelman A, Greenland S. Are confidence intervals better termed "uncertainty
intervals"? BMJ (2019)l5381. \doi{10.1136/bmj.l5381}
\item Greenland S, Rafi Z, Matthews R, Higgs M. To Aid Scientific Inference,
Emphasize Unconditional Compatibility Descriptions of Statistics. (2022)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.08583v7 (Accessed November 10, 2022)
\item Rafi Z, Greenland S. Semantic and cognitive tools to aid statistical
science: Replace confidence and significance by compatibility and surprise.
BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2020;20(1):244. \doi{10.1186/s12874-020-01105-9}
\item Schweder T. Confidence is epistemic probability for empirical science.
Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference (2018) 195:116–125.
\doi{10.1016/j.jspi.2017.09.016}
\item Schweder T, Hjort NL. Confidence and Likelihood. Scandinavian Journal of
Statistics. 2002;29(2):309-332. \doi{10.1111/1467-9469.00285}
\item Schweder T, Hjort NL. Frequentist analogues of priors and posteriors.
In Stigum, B. (ed.), Econometrics and the Philosophy of Economics: Theory
Data Confrontation in Economics, pp. 285-217. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 2003
\item Schweder T, Hjort NL. Confidence, Likelihood, Probability: Statistical
inference with confidence distributions. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
}
}
