Does the “divide by 4 rule” give the upper bound marginal effect?Assessing logistic regression modelsLogistic regression and marginal effectInference on fixed effects in a mixed effects modelHow to estimate ICC (degree of clustering) in hierarchical logistic regression?Can I do a t-test to compare t-statistics?Why does hypothesis testing using coefficient and odds ratio give different conclusion?Hypothesis testing for marginal effectRule of thumb for log odds ratios effect size interpretationlogit - interpreting coefficients as probabilitiesMLE for logistic regression, formal derivation

In the Seventh Seal why does Death let the chess game happen?

Is there a standard definition of the "stall" phenomena?

Why did Super-VGA offer the 5:4 1280*1024 resolution?

Would the Life cleric's Disciple of Life feature supercharge the Regenerate spell?

How can select a specific triangle in my Delaunay mesh?

How serious is plagiarism in a master’s thesis?

Has there ever been a cold war other than between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.?

Park the computer

Do intermediate subdomains need to exist?

Why did moving the mouse cursor cause Windows 95 to run more quickly?

How would a sea turtle end up on its back?

Does the force of friction helps us to accelerate while running?

Are "confidant" and "confident" homophones?

Is this standard Japanese employment negotiations, or am I missing something?

What's the difference between a type and a kind?

What instances can be solved today by modern solvers (pure LP)?

Lie bracket of vector fields in Penrose's abstract index notation

How do I iterate equal values with the standard library?

Is kapton suitable for use as high voltage insulation?

The Purpose of "Natu"

Why is there paternal, for fatherly, fraternal, for brotherly, but no similar word for sons?

What is the shape of the upper boundary of water hitting a screen?

Isn't "Dave's protocol" good if only the database, and not the code, is leaked?

Was the 45.9°C temperature in France in June 2019 the highest ever recorded in France?



Does the “divide by 4 rule” give the upper bound marginal effect?


Assessing logistic regression modelsLogistic regression and marginal effectInference on fixed effects in a mixed effects modelHow to estimate ICC (degree of clustering) in hierarchical logistic regression?Can I do a t-test to compare t-statistics?Why does hypothesis testing using coefficient and odds ratio give different conclusion?Hypothesis testing for marginal effectRule of thumb for log odds ratios effect size interpretationlogit - interpreting coefficients as probabilitiesMLE for logistic regression, formal derivation






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2












$begingroup$


In the logisitic regression chapter of "Data Analysis Using Regression and
Multilevel/Hierarchical Models" by Gelman and Hill, The "Divide by 4" rule is presented to approximate average marginal effects.



"Divide by 4 rule"



Essentially, dividing the estimated log-odds ratio gives the maximum slope (or the maximum change in probabilities) of the logistic function.
Logistic function



Since the text above states that the "divide by 4 rule" gives the maximum change in $P(y=1)$ with a unit change in x, why is the estimated 8% less than the 13% calculated from actually taking the derivative of the logistic function in the example given?



Does the "divide by 4 rule" actually give the upper bound marginal effect?



Other "divide by 4" resources:



  • Using the "Divide by 4 Rule" to Interpret Logistic Regression Coefficients

  • Divide by 4 Rule for Marginal Effects - Econometric Sense

  • http://vulstats.ucsd.edu/pdf/Gelman.ch-05.logistic-regression.pdf









share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
    $endgroup$
    – Emma Jean
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
    $endgroup$
    – Great38
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
    $endgroup$
    – user158565
    7 hours ago

















2












$begingroup$


In the logisitic regression chapter of "Data Analysis Using Regression and
Multilevel/Hierarchical Models" by Gelman and Hill, The "Divide by 4" rule is presented to approximate average marginal effects.



"Divide by 4 rule"



Essentially, dividing the estimated log-odds ratio gives the maximum slope (or the maximum change in probabilities) of the logistic function.
Logistic function



Since the text above states that the "divide by 4 rule" gives the maximum change in $P(y=1)$ with a unit change in x, why is the estimated 8% less than the 13% calculated from actually taking the derivative of the logistic function in the example given?



Does the "divide by 4 rule" actually give the upper bound marginal effect?



Other "divide by 4" resources:



  • Using the "Divide by 4 Rule" to Interpret Logistic Regression Coefficients

  • Divide by 4 Rule for Marginal Effects - Econometric Sense

  • http://vulstats.ucsd.edu/pdf/Gelman.ch-05.logistic-regression.pdf









share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
    $endgroup$
    – Emma Jean
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
    $endgroup$
    – Great38
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
    $endgroup$
    – user158565
    7 hours ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$


In the logisitic regression chapter of "Data Analysis Using Regression and
Multilevel/Hierarchical Models" by Gelman and Hill, The "Divide by 4" rule is presented to approximate average marginal effects.



"Divide by 4 rule"



Essentially, dividing the estimated log-odds ratio gives the maximum slope (or the maximum change in probabilities) of the logistic function.
Logistic function



Since the text above states that the "divide by 4 rule" gives the maximum change in $P(y=1)$ with a unit change in x, why is the estimated 8% less than the 13% calculated from actually taking the derivative of the logistic function in the example given?



Does the "divide by 4 rule" actually give the upper bound marginal effect?



Other "divide by 4" resources:



  • Using the "Divide by 4 Rule" to Interpret Logistic Regression Coefficients

  • Divide by 4 Rule for Marginal Effects - Econometric Sense

  • http://vulstats.ucsd.edu/pdf/Gelman.ch-05.logistic-regression.pdf









share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




In the logisitic regression chapter of "Data Analysis Using Regression and
Multilevel/Hierarchical Models" by Gelman and Hill, The "Divide by 4" rule is presented to approximate average marginal effects.



"Divide by 4 rule"



Essentially, dividing the estimated log-odds ratio gives the maximum slope (or the maximum change in probabilities) of the logistic function.
Logistic function



Since the text above states that the "divide by 4 rule" gives the maximum change in $P(y=1)$ with a unit change in x, why is the estimated 8% less than the 13% calculated from actually taking the derivative of the logistic function in the example given?



Does the "divide by 4 rule" actually give the upper bound marginal effect?



Other "divide by 4" resources:



  • Using the "Divide by 4 Rule" to Interpret Logistic Regression Coefficients

  • Divide by 4 Rule for Marginal Effects - Econometric Sense

  • http://vulstats.ucsd.edu/pdf/Gelman.ch-05.logistic-regression.pdf






logistic regression-coefficients odds-ratio logistic-curve model-interpretation






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 8 hours ago









Great38Great38

1,0385 silver badges16 bronze badges




1,0385 silver badges16 bronze badges







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
    $endgroup$
    – Emma Jean
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
    $endgroup$
    – Great38
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
    $endgroup$
    – user158565
    7 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
    $endgroup$
    – Emma Jean
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
    $endgroup$
    – Great38
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
    $endgroup$
    – user158565
    7 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
$endgroup$
– whuber
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
$endgroup$
– whuber
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
@whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
$endgroup$
– Emma Jean
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
@whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
$endgroup$
– Emma Jean
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
@whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
$endgroup$
– Great38
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
@whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
$endgroup$
– Great38
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
$endgroup$
– whuber
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
$endgroup$
– whuber
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
$endgroup$
– user158565
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
$endgroup$
– user158565
7 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

I think it's a typo.



The derivative of the logistic curve with respect to $x$ is:
$$
fracbetamathrme^alpha + beta xleft(1 + mathrme^alpha + beta xright)^2
$$



So for their example where $alpha = -1.40, beta = 0.33$ it is:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xleft(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xright)^2
$$

Evaluated at the mean $barx=3.1$ gives:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1left(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33cdot 3.1right)^2 = 0.0796367
$$

This result is very close to the maximum slope of $0.33/4 = 0.0825$ which is attained at $x=-fracalphabeta=4.24$, supporting their claim.



On page 82, they write



GelmanHill



But $0.33mathrme^-0.39/left(1+mathrme^-0.39right)^2neq 0.13$. Instead, it's around $0.08$, as shown above.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    2












    $begingroup$

    For a continuous variable $x$, the marginal effect of $x$ in a logit model is



    $$Lambda(alpha + beta x)cdot left[1-Lambda(alpha + beta x)right]cdotbeta = p cdot (1 - p) cdot beta,$$ where the inverse logit function is
    $$Lambda(z)=fracexpz1+expz.$$



    Here $p$ is a probability, so the factor $pcdot (1-p)$ is maximized when $p=0.5$ at $0.25$, which is where the $frac14$ comes from. Multiplying by the coefficient gives you the upper bound on the marginal effect. Here it is



    $$0.25cdot0.33 =0.0825.$$



    Calculating the marginal effect at the mean income yields,



    $$mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1)cdot left(1-mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot3.1)right)cdot 0.33 = 0.07963666$$



    These are pretty close, with the approximate maximum marginal effect bounding the marginal effect at the mean.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "65"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f415928%2fdoes-the-divide-by-4-rule-give-the-upper-bound-marginal-effect%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4












      $begingroup$

      I think it's a typo.



      The derivative of the logistic curve with respect to $x$ is:
      $$
      fracbetamathrme^alpha + beta xleft(1 + mathrme^alpha + beta xright)^2
      $$



      So for their example where $alpha = -1.40, beta = 0.33$ it is:
      $$
      frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xleft(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xright)^2
      $$

      Evaluated at the mean $barx=3.1$ gives:
      $$
      frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1left(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33cdot 3.1right)^2 = 0.0796367
      $$

      This result is very close to the maximum slope of $0.33/4 = 0.0825$ which is attained at $x=-fracalphabeta=4.24$, supporting their claim.



      On page 82, they write



      GelmanHill



      But $0.33mathrme^-0.39/left(1+mathrme^-0.39right)^2neq 0.13$. Instead, it's around $0.08$, as shown above.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$

















        4












        $begingroup$

        I think it's a typo.



        The derivative of the logistic curve with respect to $x$ is:
        $$
        fracbetamathrme^alpha + beta xleft(1 + mathrme^alpha + beta xright)^2
        $$



        So for their example where $alpha = -1.40, beta = 0.33$ it is:
        $$
        frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xleft(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xright)^2
        $$

        Evaluated at the mean $barx=3.1$ gives:
        $$
        frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1left(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33cdot 3.1right)^2 = 0.0796367
        $$

        This result is very close to the maximum slope of $0.33/4 = 0.0825$ which is attained at $x=-fracalphabeta=4.24$, supporting their claim.



        On page 82, they write



        GelmanHill



        But $0.33mathrme^-0.39/left(1+mathrme^-0.39right)^2neq 0.13$. Instead, it's around $0.08$, as shown above.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$















          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          I think it's a typo.



          The derivative of the logistic curve with respect to $x$ is:
          $$
          fracbetamathrme^alpha + beta xleft(1 + mathrme^alpha + beta xright)^2
          $$



          So for their example where $alpha = -1.40, beta = 0.33$ it is:
          $$
          frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xleft(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xright)^2
          $$

          Evaluated at the mean $barx=3.1$ gives:
          $$
          frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1left(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33cdot 3.1right)^2 = 0.0796367
          $$

          This result is very close to the maximum slope of $0.33/4 = 0.0825$ which is attained at $x=-fracalphabeta=4.24$, supporting their claim.



          On page 82, they write



          GelmanHill



          But $0.33mathrme^-0.39/left(1+mathrme^-0.39right)^2neq 0.13$. Instead, it's around $0.08$, as shown above.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          I think it's a typo.



          The derivative of the logistic curve with respect to $x$ is:
          $$
          fracbetamathrme^alpha + beta xleft(1 + mathrme^alpha + beta xright)^2
          $$



          So for their example where $alpha = -1.40, beta = 0.33$ it is:
          $$
          frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xleft(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xright)^2
          $$

          Evaluated at the mean $barx=3.1$ gives:
          $$
          frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1left(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33cdot 3.1right)^2 = 0.0796367
          $$

          This result is very close to the maximum slope of $0.33/4 = 0.0825$ which is attained at $x=-fracalphabeta=4.24$, supporting their claim.



          On page 82, they write



          GelmanHill



          But $0.33mathrme^-0.39/left(1+mathrme^-0.39right)^2neq 0.13$. Instead, it's around $0.08$, as shown above.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 6 hours ago

























          answered 6 hours ago









          COOLSerdashCOOLSerdash

          17.2k7 gold badges53 silver badges100 bronze badges




          17.2k7 gold badges53 silver badges100 bronze badges























              2












              $begingroup$

              For a continuous variable $x$, the marginal effect of $x$ in a logit model is



              $$Lambda(alpha + beta x)cdot left[1-Lambda(alpha + beta x)right]cdotbeta = p cdot (1 - p) cdot beta,$$ where the inverse logit function is
              $$Lambda(z)=fracexpz1+expz.$$



              Here $p$ is a probability, so the factor $pcdot (1-p)$ is maximized when $p=0.5$ at $0.25$, which is where the $frac14$ comes from. Multiplying by the coefficient gives you the upper bound on the marginal effect. Here it is



              $$0.25cdot0.33 =0.0825.$$



              Calculating the marginal effect at the mean income yields,



              $$mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1)cdot left(1-mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot3.1)right)cdot 0.33 = 0.07963666$$



              These are pretty close, with the approximate maximum marginal effect bounding the marginal effect at the mean.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                2












                $begingroup$

                For a continuous variable $x$, the marginal effect of $x$ in a logit model is



                $$Lambda(alpha + beta x)cdot left[1-Lambda(alpha + beta x)right]cdotbeta = p cdot (1 - p) cdot beta,$$ where the inverse logit function is
                $$Lambda(z)=fracexpz1+expz.$$



                Here $p$ is a probability, so the factor $pcdot (1-p)$ is maximized when $p=0.5$ at $0.25$, which is where the $frac14$ comes from. Multiplying by the coefficient gives you the upper bound on the marginal effect. Here it is



                $$0.25cdot0.33 =0.0825.$$



                Calculating the marginal effect at the mean income yields,



                $$mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1)cdot left(1-mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot3.1)right)cdot 0.33 = 0.07963666$$



                These are pretty close, with the approximate maximum marginal effect bounding the marginal effect at the mean.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  For a continuous variable $x$, the marginal effect of $x$ in a logit model is



                  $$Lambda(alpha + beta x)cdot left[1-Lambda(alpha + beta x)right]cdotbeta = p cdot (1 - p) cdot beta,$$ where the inverse logit function is
                  $$Lambda(z)=fracexpz1+expz.$$



                  Here $p$ is a probability, so the factor $pcdot (1-p)$ is maximized when $p=0.5$ at $0.25$, which is where the $frac14$ comes from. Multiplying by the coefficient gives you the upper bound on the marginal effect. Here it is



                  $$0.25cdot0.33 =0.0825.$$



                  Calculating the marginal effect at the mean income yields,



                  $$mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1)cdot left(1-mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot3.1)right)cdot 0.33 = 0.07963666$$



                  These are pretty close, with the approximate maximum marginal effect bounding the marginal effect at the mean.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  For a continuous variable $x$, the marginal effect of $x$ in a logit model is



                  $$Lambda(alpha + beta x)cdot left[1-Lambda(alpha + beta x)right]cdotbeta = p cdot (1 - p) cdot beta,$$ where the inverse logit function is
                  $$Lambda(z)=fracexpz1+expz.$$



                  Here $p$ is a probability, so the factor $pcdot (1-p)$ is maximized when $p=0.5$ at $0.25$, which is where the $frac14$ comes from. Multiplying by the coefficient gives you the upper bound on the marginal effect. Here it is



                  $$0.25cdot0.33 =0.0825.$$



                  Calculating the marginal effect at the mean income yields,



                  $$mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1)cdot left(1-mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot3.1)right)cdot 0.33 = 0.07963666$$



                  These are pretty close, with the approximate maximum marginal effect bounding the marginal effect at the mean.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 4 hours ago

























                  answered 6 hours ago









                  Dimitriy V. MasterovDimitriy V. Masterov

                  21.6k1 gold badge42 silver badges98 bronze badges




                  21.6k1 gold badge42 silver badges98 bronze badges



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f415928%2fdoes-the-divide-by-4-rule-give-the-upper-bound-marginal-effect%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                      Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                      Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її