Skip to content

Feature request: logit_notation option for GLM equations #247

Closed
Closed
Feature request: logit_notation option for GLM equations#247
Assignees
phgrosjean

Description

@friendly
friendly
opened on Mar 24, 2026

Summary

For logistic regression models, extract_eq() currently renders the LHS as an
explicit log-odds fraction:

\log\left[ \frac{P(\hat{Y} = 1)}{1 - P(\hat{Y} = 1)} \right] = \alpha + \beta_1 X_1 + \cdots

It would be useful to have an option to render this in the more compact and widely-used logit notation:

\operatorname{logit}\left[ P(\hat{Y}) \right] = \alpha + \beta_1 X_1 + \cdots

Both forms are mathematically equivalent, but the logit form is standard in many textbooks and journals, and is considerably more compact — especially when equations are long or displayed in presentations.

Motivating context: nested logit models

This came up while adding an extract_eq() S3 method to the nestedLogit package (CRAN). A
nested logit model is a collection of binary logit sub-models, one per dichotomy. For a model with several dichotomies and several predictors, the
equations become long, and the log-fraction LHS adds visual noise on top of an already busy RHS.

See: the latex equations vignette illustrating the current implementation.

In this context:

  • Each sub-model is a standard glm(..., family = binomial) object.
  • extract_eq() is called on each sub-model in turn; the results are assembled into a named list and printed separately in an R Markdown document.
  • Because there are multiple equations (one per dichotomy), compactness of the LHS matters more than in the single-equation case.

The nestedLogit method currently works around the limitation by post-processing the raw LaTeX string returned by extract_eq(), but it would be cleaner to handle this directly in equatiomatic.

Proposed interface

A new logical argument on extract_eq.glm() (and propagated through
extract_eq.default() for any binomial-family GLM):

extract_eq(model, logit_notation = FALSE, ...)

When logit_notation = TRUE:

  • Replace \log\left[\frac{P(Y)}{1 - P(Y)}\right] with
    \operatorname{logit}\left[P(Y)\right] on the LHS.
  • Drop the redundant = 1 from P(Y = 1) when collapsing to P(Y).

Default FALSE preserves current behaviour.

Implementation sketch

The substitution could be applied as a post-processing step on the assembled
LaTeX string, using two passes:

# 1. Strip "= 1" from P(Y = 1)  →  P(Y)
eq_str <- gsub(
  "(P\\(\\s*\\\\operatorname\\{[^}]+\\})\\s*=\\s*\\\\operatorname\\{1\\}",
  "\\1", eq_str, perl = TRUE
)

# 2. Replace log-fraction with logit[...]
eq_str <- gsub(
  "\\\\log\\\\left\\[\\s*\\\\frac\\s*\\{(P\\([^)]+\\))\\}\\{\\s*1\\s*-\\s*\\1\\s*\\}\\s*\\\\right\\]",
  "\\\\operatorname{logit}\\\\left[\\1\\\\right]",
  eq_str, perl = TRUE
)

(Note: back-references in the pattern require perl = TRUE; R's default TRE
engine only supports back-references in replacement strings.)

Related

  • The same simplification would apply to probit and other binary-response GLMs, where the LHS could similarly be written as
    \operatorname{probit}[P(Y)] rather than \Phi^{-1}[P(Y)], though that is a separate decision.
  • For polr (ordered logit/probit), the threshold form of the LHS is different and would need separate treatment.
  • GLMs in general allow a wide variety of link functions g(Y) so this idea could be more generally useful.

Activity

  1. phgrosjean commented on Mar 26, 2026

    @phgrosjean
    phgrosjean
    on Mar 26, 2026
    Collaborator

    This seems feasible. I'll look at this...

  2. phgrosjean
    self-assigned this
    on Mar 26, 2026

  3. friendly commented on Mar 26, 2026

    @friendly
    friendly
    on Mar 26, 2026
    Author

    Thanks! (And also for making such a handy tool available)

  4. phgrosjean commented on Mar 27, 2026

    @phgrosjean
    phgrosjean
    on Mar 27, 2026
    Collaborator

    @friendly Could you test branch logic_notation with the feature implemented ?

  5. friendly commented on Mar 27, 2026

    @friendly
    friendly
    on Mar 27, 2026
    Author

    Thank you so much for implementing this feature request!! Here are my results from testing this

    Testing the logit-notation branch

    Installed via remotes::install_github("datalorax/equatiomatic@logit_notation") and
    tested with the nestedLogit package.

    What works

    logit_notation = TRUE produces the correct LHS on a single GLM sub-model:

    mod.work <- models(wlf.nested, "work")
extract_eq(mod.work, logit_notation = TRUE)

    Output (as expected):

    $$
\operatorname{logit}\left[ P( \operatorname{work} ) \right] = \alpha + \beta_{1}(\operatorname{hincome}) + \beta_{2}(\operatorname{children}_{\operatorname{present}})
$$

    The argument also passes through correctly to the nestedLogit S3 method, which
    calls extract_eq() on each sub-model in turn — so the full nested model works too.

    Bug??: misleading message when logit_notation = TRUE is actually applied

    Every call to extract_eq(model, logit_notation = TRUE) emits:

    logit_notation = TRUE ignored when show_distribution is TRUE.

    Maybe I just don't understand show_distribution ?

    But the output IS correct — the logit notation is applied. The message is
    contradicted by the result. It appears that the warning fires unconditionally
    (perhaps whenever show_distribution takes its default TRUE value) rather than
    only when the substitution is genuinely being skipped. This should either be
    suppressed when the substitution succeeds, or the condition guarding it should be
    inverted.

    Downstream issue: preview_eq() fails on already-rendered equation strings

    preview_eq() works fine on a single sub-model:

    extract_eq(mod.work, logit_notation = TRUE) |> preview_eq()   # OK

    But piping the full nestedLogit output to preview_eq() errors:

    extract_eq(wlf.nested, logit_notation = TRUE) |> preview_eq()
# logit_notation = TRUE ignored when show_distribution is TRUE.
# logit_notation = TRUE ignored when show_distribution is TRUE.
# Error in UseMethod("extract_lhs", model) :
#   no applicable method for 'extract_lhs' applied to an object of class
#   "c('equation', 'character')"

    The nestedLogit method returns a named list of "equation" objects that are
    already-rendered character strings (class c("equation", "character")).
    preview_eq() then tries to call extract_lhs() on each one as if it were still
    a model object, which fails. This is most likely a nestedLogit-side issue —
    the package needs a preview_eq method for its "nestedLogit_equations" list
    class — rather than a bug in equatiomatic. Noting it here for completeness.

    Summary

    Test Result
    extract_eq(glm_submodel, logit_notation = TRUE) ✓ correct output
    extract_eq(nestedLogit_model, logit_notation = TRUE) ✓ correct output
    Message "ignored when show_distribution is TRUE" ✗ misleading — fires even when substitution succeeds
    extract_eq(...) |> preview_eq() on single sub-model ✓ works
    extract_eq(nestedLogit_model, ...) |> preview_eq() ✗ errors (nestedLogit-side fix needed)

  6. phgrosjean commented on Mar 30, 2026

    @phgrosjean
    phgrosjean
    on Mar 30, 2026
    Collaborator

    @friendly, my bad. I misplaced to message relative to show_distributionand legit_notation. This should be solved in the current iteration.
    For your preview_eq() problem, if you object is of class c("equation", "character"), it should not call extract_eq() at all. In preview_eq(), there is : if (!inherits(x, "equation")) x <- extract_eq(x). But as I understand it, you provide a list() of c("equation", "character"), so, you would have to do something like (l|s)apply(x, preview_eq) probably. Could you give a reproducible example, so that I could further inspect this?

  7. phgrosjean commented on Apr 4, 2026

    @phgrosjean
    phgrosjean
    on Apr 4, 2026
    Collaborator

    I have made a change in preview_eq() to allow previewing lists of equations directly.

  8. friendly commented on Apr 4, 2026

    @friendly
    friendly
    on Apr 4, 2026
    Author

    Great! Thanks so much for responding to this. equatiomatic is really handy.

    BTW: My matlib pkg has some very general tools for constructing LaTeX for matrix expressions, https://friendly.github.io/matlib/articles/latex-equations.html

  9. phgrosjean commented on Apr 13, 2026

    @phgrosjean
    phgrosjean
    on Apr 13, 2026
    Collaborator

    This feature is now implemented in {equatiomatic} 0.4.8 that is now on CRAN (pull request #248).

  10. phgrosjean
    closed this as completedon Apr 13, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions