Binary logistic regression is among the most widely used classification algorithms, yet a classifier is only trustworthy if its predicted probabilities are well calibrated. The classical checks -- the Pearson chi-square and deviance statistics -- break down precisely in the modern setting where predictors are continuous and the data are sparse (one covariate pattern per observation). Four decades of research have produced dozens of alternative goodness-of-fit and calibration algorithms, yet practitioners still default to the Hosmer-Lemeshow test because it ships with their software. This paper provides a unified taxonomy and a large-scale, reproducible simulation benchmark; more than twenty tests are implemented in the open-source R package ebrahim.gof. We evaluate them across five covariate distributions and four misspecification scenarios, with 10,000 replications each, measuring both Type I error and power. Several classical tests prove liberal, rejecting correct models far too often, while others have little power. A compact core -- McCullagh, Osius-Rojek, le Cessie-van Houwelingen, Stute-Zhu, and the GiViTI calibration test -- delivers the best balance of correct size and high power, and is consistently more powerful than the ubiquitous Hosmer-Lemeshow test. A low-birth-weight application reinforces the point: a model with omitted interactions slips past nearly every test, exposed only by pairing sensitive tests with a calibration (reliability) curve. We translate these findings into practical, evidence-based guidance for assessing logistic regression fit.

翻译：暂无翻译