> 4. Is there no way to convince core that the default option for signif
> stars should be FALSE??? At a minimum, modern software should be
> printing out profile likelihood intervals (even SAS does for logistic
> regression now) and not standard errors for non-normal models. The
> intervals, let alone tests, based on s.e.s can be meaningless for
> glms. Are there no likelihoodlums (except me) or Bayesians out there?
Hi Jim,
I agree with you 100%. I am likelihood freak too and would like to have
profile likelihood conf intervals.
Also I would love to know how to compute profile likelihood confidence
intervals when doing MLE with nlm. I have never seen this described
anywhere in enough detail to do it myself. (I would incorporate that into
the little nonlinear model fitting section I wrote for Notes on R.)
Bill Simpson
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at
stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._