thr3ads.net - R devel - [Rd] New vcov(*, complete=TRUE) etc -- coef(<lm>) vs coef(<aov>) [Nov 2017]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Martin Maechler

2017-Sep-14 08:23 UTC

[Rd] vcov and survival

>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>>>>     on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:13:02 +0200 writes:
>>>>> Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca>
>>>>>     on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:45:07 +0000 writes:
    >> Dear Terry,
    >> Even the behaviour of lm() and glm() isn't entirely consistent.
In both cases, singularity results in NA coefficients by default, and these are
reported in the model summary and coefficient vector, but not in the coefficient
covariance matrix:

    >> ----------------	

    >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
    >> +              data=longley)
    >>> summary(mod.lm)

    >> Call:
    >> lm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population), 
    >> data = longley)

    >> Residuals:
    >> Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
    >> -0.80899 -0.33282 -0.02329  0.25895  1.08800 

    >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)
    >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
    >> (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 ***
    >> GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 ***
    >> Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *  
    >> I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA    
    >> ---
    >> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*'
0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

    >> Residual standard error: 0.5459 on 13 degrees of freedom
    >> Multiple R-squared:  0.9791,	Adjusted R-squared:  0.9758 
    >> F-statistic: 303.9 on 2 and 13 DF,  p-value: 1.221e-11

    >>> vcov(mod.lm)
    >> (Intercept)           GNP Population
    >> (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381
    >> GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054
    >> Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456
    >>> coef(mod.lm)
    >> (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP +
Population)
    >> 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292                
NA
    >>> 
    >>> mod.glm <- glm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
    >> +               data=longley)
    >>> summary(mod.glm)

    >> Call:
    >> glm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population), 
    >> data = longley)

    >> Deviance Residuals: 
    >> Min        1Q    Median        3Q       Max  
    >> -0.80899  -0.33282  -0.02329   0.25895   1.08800  

    >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)
    >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
    >> (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 ***
    >> GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 ***
    >> Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *  
    >> I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA    
    >> ---
    >> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*'
0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

    >> (Dispersion parameter for gaussian family taken to be 0.2980278)

    >> Null deviance: 185.0088  on 15  degrees of freedom
    >> Residual deviance:   3.8744  on 13  degrees of freedom
    >> AIC: 30.715

    >> Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 2

    >>> coef(mod.glm)
    >> (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP +
Population)
    >> 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292                
NA
    >>> vcov(mod.glm)
    >> (Intercept)           GNP Population
    >> (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381
    >> GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054
    >> Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456

    >> ----------------	

    >> Moreoever, lm() has a singular.ok() argument that defaults to TRUE,
but glm() doesn't have this argument:

    >> ----------------	

    >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
    >> +              data=longley, singular.ok=FALSE)
    >> Error in lm.fit(x, y, offset = offset, singular.ok = singular.ok,
...) :
    >> singular fit encountered

    >> ----------------	

    >> In my opinion, singularity should at least produce a warning, both
in calls to lm() and glm(), and in summary() output. Even better, again in my
opinion, would be to produce an error by default in this situation, but doing so
would likely break too much existing code.

    > Yes, I would not want to change.  Note that this is from S
    > already, i.e., long "ingrained".  I think there one argument
was
    > that there are situations with factor predictors of many levels
    > and conceptually their 2- or even 3-way interactions (!)
    > where it is neat to just fit the model, (-> get residuals and
    > fitted values) and also see implicitly the "necessary rank"
of
    > prediction space, or rather even more specifically, you see for
    > every factor how many levels are "distinguishable"/useful for
    > prediction, given the data.

    >> I prefer NA to 0 for the redundant coefficients because it at least
suggests that the decision about what to exclude is arbitrary, and of course
simply excluding coefficients isn't the only way to proceed.

    > I'm less modest and would say *definitely*, NA's are highly
    > prefered in such a situation.

    >> Finally, the differences in behaviour between coef() and vcov() and
between lm() and glm() aren't really sensible.

    > I really haven't seen any difference between lm() and glm() in
    > the example above.  Maybe you can point them out for me.

.. now I saw it:
   lm() has  a 'singular.ok = TRUE' argument
   which you can set to FALSE if you prefer an error to NA coefficients.

I also agree with you John that it would be nice if  glm() also
got such an argument.
Patches are welcome and seem easy. Nowadays we prefer them
as attachments (diff/patch file!) at R's
  https://bugs.r-project.org bugzilla 
against the svn source, here
  https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/R/glm.R
and
  https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/man/glm.Rd

    > I do quite agree that  vcov() should be compatible with
    > coef() [and summary()]  for both 'lm' and 'glm'
methods, i.e.,
    > should get NA rows and columns there.  This would require
    > eliminating these before e.g. using it in solve(<vcov>, *) etc,
    > but I think it would be a good idea that the useR must deal with
    > these NAs actively.

    > Shall "we" try and see the fallout in CRAN space?

    >> Maybe there's some reason for all this that escapes me.
    > (for the first one---"no error"--- I gave a reason)

    >> Best,
    >> John

    >> --------------------------------------
    >> John Fox, Professor Emeritus
    >> McMaster University
    >> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    >> Web: socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox




    >>> -----Original Message-----
    >>> From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On
Behalf Of
    >>> Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.
    >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:19 PM
    >>> To: r-devel at r-project.org
    >>> Subject: [Rd] vcov and survival
    >>> 
    >>> I have just noticed a difference in behavior between coxph and
lm/glm:
    >>> if one or more of the coefficients from the fit in NA, then lm
and glm
    >>> omit that row/column from the variance matrix; while coxph
retains it
    >>> but sets the values to zero.
    >>> 
    >>> Is this something that should be "fixed", i.e., made
to agree? I
    >>> suspect that doing so will break other packages, but then NA
coefs are
    >>> rather rare so perhaps not.
    >>> 
    >>> Terry Therneau

Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.

2017-Sep-14 12:41 UTC

head link

[Rd] vcov and survival

Thanks all for your comments.  No one said "all the other vcov methods do
....", so I took
some time this AM to look at several listed in the vcov help page.
Here is the code for the first few examples: data2 is constructed specifically
to create
an NA coef midway in the list.

data1 <- data.frame(y = c(1,2,10,50, 5, 4, 8, 40, 60, 20, 21, 22,
                           3,5,12,52, 7, 8,16, 48, 58, 28, 20,5),
                     x1 = factor(letters[rep(1:3, length=24)]),
                     x2 = factor(LETTERS[rep(1:4, length=24)]),
                     x3 = factor(rep(1:7, length=24)))
data2 <- subset(data1, x1 !='a' | x2 != 'C')

fit1 <- lm(y ~ x1*x2, data2)
table(is.na(coef(fit1)))
dim(vcov(fit1))

fit2 <- glm(y ~ x1*x2, data=data2, poisson)
table(is.na(coef(fit2)))
dim(vcov(fit2))

fit3 <- lme(y ~ x1*x2, random= ~1|x3, data2)

1. lm, mlm, glm, negbin objects all have an NA in coef(fit); and remove NA
columns from
the vcov object.

2. I expected polr to return a generalized inverse of the Hessian since
vcov.polr has a
call to ginv(object$Hessian), but it shortcuts earlier with a message
  "design appears to be rank-deficient, so dropping some coefs"
The undetermined coef appears in neither coef() more vcov().

3. rlm declares that it does not work with singular data.

4. multinom returns values for all coefficients and a full variance matrix. 
However, the
returned variance is rank-deficient.  It is essentially a g-inverse of the
Hessian.

5. coxph and survreg report an NA coef, and return a generalized inverse of the
Hessian
matrix.  The g-inverse was chosen to be a particularly easy one in that you can
spot
redundant colums via a row/col of zeros.

6. nlme fails with a singularity error.  I didn't check out gls.

So my original question of whether I should make coxph consistent with the
others has no
answer, the 'others' are not consistent.

In response to two other points:
  >> In my opinion singularity should at least produce a warning...
I was one of those who lobbied heavily to change the singular.ok=FALSE default
of lm to
TRUE.  Data is messy, I have work to do, and don't need a package constantly
harping at me.

In the same vein, stuffing NA into the vcov result is more pure, but would cause
a lot of
hassle.  I'm not sure that it is worth it.

For now, coxph will stay as is.
But again, thanks to all for comments and I'll look forward to any more
discussion.

Terry T.


On 09/14/2017 03:23 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:>>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>>>>>      on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:13:02 +0200 writes:
> 
>>>>>> Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca>
>>>>>>      on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:45:07 +0000 writes:
> 
>      >> Dear Terry,
>      >> Even the behaviour of lm() and glm() isn't entirely
consistent. In both cases, singularity results in NA coefficients by default,
and these are reported in the model summary and coefficient vector, but not in
the coefficient covariance matrix:
> 
>      >> ----------------	
> 
>      >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
>      >> +              data=longley)
>      >>> summary(mod.lm)
> 
>      >> Call:
>      >> lm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
>      >> data = longley)
> 
>      >> Residuals:
>      >> Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max
>      >> -0.80899 -0.33282 -0.02329  0.25895  1.08800
> 
>      >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)
>      >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
>      >> (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 ***
>      >> GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 ***
>      >> Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *
>      >> I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA
>      >> ---
>      >> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01
'*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
> 
>      >> Residual standard error: 0.5459 on 13 degrees of freedom
>      >> Multiple R-squared:  0.9791,	Adjusted R-squared:  0.9758
>      >> F-statistic: 303.9 on 2 and 13 DF,  p-value: 1.221e-11
> 
>      >>> vcov(mod.lm)
>      >> (Intercept)           GNP Population
>      >> (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381
>      >> GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054
>      >> Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456
>      >>> coef(mod.lm)
>      >> (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP +
Population)
>      >> 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292          
NA
>      >>>
>      >>> mod.glm <- glm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
>      >> +               data=longley)
>      >>> summary(mod.glm)
> 
>      >> Call:
>      >> glm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
>      >> data = longley)
> 
>      >> Deviance Residuals:
>      >> Min        1Q    Median        3Q       Max
>      >> -0.80899  -0.33282  -0.02329   0.25895   1.08800
> 
>      >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)
>      >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
>      >> (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 ***
>      >> GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 ***
>      >> Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *
>      >> I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA
>      >> ---
>      >> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01
'*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
> 
>      >> (Dispersion parameter for gaussian family taken to be
0.2980278)
> 
>      >> Null deviance: 185.0088  on 15  degrees of freedom
>      >> Residual deviance:   3.8744  on 13  degrees of freedom
>      >> AIC: 30.715
> 
>      >> Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 2
> 
>      >>> coef(mod.glm)
>      >> (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP +
Population)
>      >> 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292          
NA
>      >>> vcov(mod.glm)
>      >> (Intercept)           GNP Population
>      >> (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381
>      >> GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054
>      >> Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456
> 
>      >> ----------------	
> 
>      >> Moreoever, lm() has a singular.ok() argument that defaults to
TRUE, but glm() doesn't have this argument:
> 
>      >> ----------------	
> 
>      >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
>      >> +              data=longley, singular.ok=FALSE)
>      >> Error in lm.fit(x, y, offset = offset, singular.ok =
singular.ok, ...) :
>      >> singular fit encountered
> 
>      >> ----------------	
> 
>      >> In my opinion, singularity should at least produce a warning,
both in calls to lm() and glm(), and in summary() output. Even better, again in
my opinion, would be to produce an error by default in this situation, but doing
so would likely break too much existing code.
> 
>      > Yes, I would not want to change.  Note that this is from S
>      > already, i.e., long "ingrained".  I think there one
argument was
>      > that there are situations with factor predictors of many levels
>      > and conceptually their 2- or even 3-way interactions (!)
>      > where it is neat to just fit the model, (-> get residuals and
>      > fitted values) and also see implicitly the "necessary
rank" of
>      > prediction space, or rather even more specifically, you see for
>      > every factor how many levels are
"distinguishable"/useful for
>      > prediction, given the data.
> 
>      >> I prefer NA to 0 for the redundant coefficients because it at
least suggests that the decision about what to exclude is arbitrary, and of
course simply excluding coefficients isn't the only way to proceed.
> 
>      > I'm less modest and would say *definitely*, NA's are
highly
>      > prefered in such a situation.
> 
>      >> Finally, the differences in behaviour between coef() and
vcov() and between lm() and glm() aren't really sensible.
> 
>      > I really haven't seen any difference between lm() and glm()
in
>      > the example above.  Maybe you can point them out for me.
> 
> .. now I saw it:
>     lm() has  a 'singular.ok = TRUE' argument
>     which you can set to FALSE if you prefer an error to NA coefficients.
> 
> I also agree with you John that it would be nice if  glm() also
> got such an argument.
> Patches are welcome and seem easy. Nowadays we prefer them
> as attachments (diff/patch file!) at R's
>    https://bugs.r-project.org bugzilla
> against the svn source, here
>    https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/R/glm.R
> and
>    https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/man/glm.Rd
> 
>      > I do quite agree that  vcov() should be compatible with
>      > coef() [and summary()]  for both 'lm' and 'glm'
methods, i.e.,
>      > should get NA rows and columns there.  This would require
>      > eliminating these before e.g. using it in solve(<vcov>, *)
etc,
>      > but I think it would be a good idea that the useR must deal with
>      > these NAs actively.
> 
>      > Shall "we" try and see the fallout in CRAN space?
> 
>      >> Maybe there's some reason for all this that escapes me.
>      > (for the first one---"no error"--- I gave a reason)
> 
>      >> Best,
>      >> John
> 
>      >> --------------------------------------
>      >> John Fox, Professor Emeritus
>      >> McMaster University
>      >> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
>      >> Web: socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      >>> -----Original Message-----
>      >>> From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org]
On Behalf Of
>      >>> Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.
>      >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:19 PM
>      >>> To: r-devel at r-project.org
>      >>> Subject: [Rd] vcov and survival
>      >>>
>      >>> I have just noticed a difference in behavior between
coxph and lm/glm:
>      >>> if one or more of the coefficients from the fit in NA,
then lm and glm
>      >>> omit that row/column from the variance matrix; while
coxph retains it
>      >>> but sets the values to zero.
>      >>>
>      >>> Is this something that should be "fixed", i.e.,
made to agree? I
>      >>> suspect that doing so will break other packages, but then
NA coefs are
>      >>> rather rare so perhaps not.
>      >>>
>      >>> Terry Therneau
>

Fox, John

2017-Sep-14 13:46 UTC

head link

[Rd] vcov and survival

Dear Martin,

I made three points which likely got lost because of the way I presented them:

(1) Singularity is an unusual situation and should be made more prominent. It
typically reflects a problem with the data or the specification of the model.
That's not to say that it *never* makes sense to allow singular fits (as in
the situations you mentions).

I'd favour setting singular.ok=FALSE as the default, but in the absence of
that a warning or at least a note. A compromise would be to have a singular.ok
option() that would be FALSE out of the box.

Any changes would have to be made very carefully so as not to create chaos. That
goes for the points below as well.

(2) coef() and vcov() behave inconsistently, which can be problematic because
one often uses them together in code.

(3) As you noticed in your second message, lm() has a singular.ok argument and
glm() doesn't.

I'll take a look at the code for glm() with an eye towards creating a patch,
but I'm a bit reluctant to mess with the code for something as important as
glm().

Best,
 John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Maechler [mailto:maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:23 AM
> To: Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
> Cc: Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca>; Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.
> <therneau at mayo.edu>; r-devel at r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Rd] vcov and survival
> 
> >>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
> >>>>>     on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:13:02 +0200 writes:
> 
> >>>>> Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca>
> >>>>>     on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:45:07 +0000 writes:
> 
>     >> Dear Terry,
>     >> Even the behaviour of lm() and glm() isn't entirely
consistent. In both
> cases, singularity results in NA coefficients by default, and these are
reported
> in the model summary and coefficient vector, but not in the coefficient
> covariance matrix:
> 
>     >> ----------------
> 
>     >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
>     >> +              data=longley)
>     >>> summary(mod.lm)
> 
>     >> Call:
>     >> lm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
>     >> data = longley)
> 
>     >> Residuals:
>     >> Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max
>     >> -0.80899 -0.33282 -0.02329  0.25895  1.08800
> 
>     >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)
>     >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
>     >> (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 ***
>     >> GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 ***
>     >> Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *
>     >> I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA
>     >> ---
>     >> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01
'*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
> 
>     >> Residual standard error: 0.5459 on 13 degrees of freedom
>     >> Multiple R-squared:  0.9791,	Adjusted R-squared:  0.9758
>     >> F-statistic: 303.9 on 2 and 13 DF,  p-value: 1.221e-11
> 
>     >>> vcov(mod.lm)
>     >> (Intercept)           GNP Population
>     >> (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381
>     >> GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054
>     >> Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456
>     >>> coef(mod.lm)
>     >> (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP +
Population)
>     >> 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292           
NA
>     >>>
>     >>> mod.glm <- glm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
>     >> +               data=longley)
>     >>> summary(mod.glm)
> 
>     >> Call:
>     >> glm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
>     >> data = longley)
> 
>     >> Deviance Residuals:
>     >> Min        1Q    Median        3Q       Max
>     >> -0.80899  -0.33282  -0.02329   0.25895   1.08800
> 
>     >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)
>     >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
>     >> (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 ***
>     >> GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 ***
>     >> Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *
>     >> I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA
>     >> ---
>     >> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01
'*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
> 
>     >> (Dispersion parameter for gaussian family taken to be
0.2980278)
> 
>     >> Null deviance: 185.0088  on 15  degrees of freedom
>     >> Residual deviance:   3.8744  on 13  degrees of freedom
>     >> AIC: 30.715
> 
>     >> Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 2
> 
>     >>> coef(mod.glm)
>     >> (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP +
Population)
>     >> 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292           
NA
>     >>> vcov(mod.glm)
>     >> (Intercept)           GNP Population
>     >> (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381
>     >> GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054
>     >> Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456
> 
>     >> ----------------
> 
>     >> Moreoever, lm() has a singular.ok() argument that defaults to
TRUE, but
> glm() doesn't have this argument:
> 
>     >> ----------------
> 
>     >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
Population),
>     >> +              data=longley, singular.ok=FALSE)
>     >> Error in lm.fit(x, y, offset = offset, singular.ok =
singular.ok, ...) :
>     >> singular fit encountered
> 
>     >> ----------------
> 
>     >> In my opinion, singularity should at least produce a warning,
both in calls
> to lm() and glm(), and in summary() output. Even better, again in my
opinion,
> would be to produce an error by default in this situation, but doing so
would
> likely break too much existing code.
> 
>     > Yes, I would not want to change.  Note that this is from S
>     > already, i.e., long "ingrained".  I think there one
argument was
>     > that there are situations with factor predictors of many levels
>     > and conceptually their 2- or even 3-way interactions (!)
>     > where it is neat to just fit the model, (-> get residuals and
>     > fitted values) and also see implicitly the "necessary
rank" of
>     > prediction space, or rather even more specifically, you see for
>     > every factor how many levels are
"distinguishable"/useful for
>     > prediction, given the data.
> 
>     >> I prefer NA to 0 for the redundant coefficients because it at
least suggests
> that the decision about what to exclude is arbitrary, and of course simply
> excluding coefficients isn't the only way to proceed.
> 
>     > I'm less modest and would say *definitely*, NA's are
highly
>     > prefered in such a situation.
> 
>     >> Finally, the differences in behaviour between coef() and
vcov() and
> between lm() and glm() aren't really sensible.
> 
>     > I really haven't seen any difference between lm() and glm() in
>     > the example above.  Maybe you can point them out for me.
> 
> .. now I saw it:
>    lm() has  a 'singular.ok = TRUE' argument
>    which you can set to FALSE if you prefer an error to NA coefficients.
> 
> I also agree with you John that it would be nice if  glm() also got such an
> argument.
> Patches are welcome and seem easy. Nowadays we prefer them as
> attachments (diff/patch file!) at R's
>   https://bugs.r-project.org bugzilla
> against the svn source, here
>   https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/R/glm.R
> and
>   https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/man/glm.Rd
> 
>     > I do quite agree that  vcov() should be compatible with
>     > coef() [and summary()]  for both 'lm' and 'glm'
methods, i.e.,
>     > should get NA rows and columns there.  This would require
>     > eliminating these before e.g. using it in solve(<vcov>, *)
etc,
>     > but I think it would be a good idea that the useR must deal with
>     > these NAs actively.
> 
>     > Shall "we" try and see the fallout in CRAN space?
> 
>     >> Maybe there's some reason for all this that escapes me.
>     > (for the first one---"no error"--- I gave a reason)
> 
>     >> Best,
>     >> John
> 
>     >> --------------------------------------
>     >> John Fox, Professor Emeritus
>     >> McMaster University
>     >> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
>     >> Web: socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     >>> -----Original Message-----
>     >>> From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On
Behalf Of
>     >>> Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.
>     >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:19 PM
>     >>> To: r-devel at r-project.org
>     >>> Subject: [Rd] vcov and survival
>     >>>
>     >>> I have just noticed a difference in behavior between coxph
and lm/glm:
>     >>> if one or more of the coefficients from the fit in NA,
then lm and glm
>     >>> omit that row/column from the variance matrix; while coxph
retains it
>     >>> but sets the values to zero.
>     >>>
>     >>> Is this something that should be "fixed", i.e.,
made to agree? I
>     >>> suspect that doing so will break other packages, but then
NA coefs are
>     >>> rather rare so perhaps not.
>     >>>
>     >>> Terry Therneau

Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.

2017-Sep-14 16:07 UTC

head link

[Rd] vcov and survival

On 09/14/2017 08:46 AM, Fox, John wrote:> Dear Martin,
> 
> I made three points which likely got lost because of the way I presented
them:
> 
> (1) Singularity is an unusual situation and should be made more prominent.
It typically reflects a problem with the data or the specification of the model.
That's not to say that it*never*  makes sense to allow singular fits (as in
the situations you mentions).
In my medical work singularity is far from unusual.  It often results from
imbalance in a
covariate, e.g., there are 4 pathological stages but one of them turns out to be
rare.
> 
> I'd favour setting singular.ok=FALSE as the default, but in the absence
of that a warning or at least a note. A compromise would be to have a
singular.ok option() that would be FALSE out of the box.
Originally the lm() default was singular.ok=FALSE.  It was a major pain in the
ass and
there was widespread unhappiness.  Enough so that Splus changed it.  (And they
were not
always very responsive to the users, so it took a lot of unrest.)   Another
early default
was na.fail, based on similar logic that "missings are unusual and should
require an
explicit response".  Don't repeat these mistakes.

Terry T.
> 
> Any changes would have to be made very carefully so as not to create chaos.
That goes for the points below as well.
> 
> (2) coef() and vcov() behave inconsistently, which can be problematic
because one often uses them together in code.
> 
> (3) As you noticed in your second message, lm() has a singular.ok argument
and glm() doesn't.
> 
> I'll take a look at the code for glm() with an eye towards creating a
patch, but I'm a bit reluctant to mess with the code for something as
important as glm().
> 
> Best,
>   John

Martin Maechler

2017-Nov-02 20:59 UTC

head link

[Rd] vcov and survival

>>>>> Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca>
>>>>>     on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:46:44 +0000 writes:
    > Dear Martin, I made three points which likely got lost
    > because of the way I presented them:

    > (1) Singularity is an unusual situation and should be made
    > more prominent. It typically reflects a problem with the
    > data or the specification of the model. That's not to say
    > that it *never* makes sense to allow singular fits (as in
    > the situations you mentions).

    > I'd favour setting singular.ok=FALSE as the default, but
    > in the absence of that a warning or at least a note. A
    > compromise would be to have a singular.ok option() that
    > would be FALSE out of the box.

    > Any changes would have to be made very carefully so as not
    > to create chaos.

I for one, am too reluctant to want to change the default there.

    >  That goes for the points below as well.

    > (2) coef() and vcov() behave inconsistently, which can be
    > problematic because one often uses them together in code.

indeed; and I had agreed on that.
As of today, in R-devel only they now behave compatibly.
NEWS entry

    ? The ?default? ("lm" etc) methods of vcov() have gained new
      optional argument complete = TRUE which makes the vcov() methods
      more consistent with the coef() methods in the case of singular
      designs.  The former behavior is now achieved by vcov(*,
      complete=FALSE).


    > (3) As you noticed in your second message, lm() has a
    > singular.ok argument and glm() doesn't.

and that has been amended even earlier (a bit more than a month
ago) in R-devel svn rev 73380 with  NEWS  entry

    ? glm() and glm.fit get the same singular.ok=TRUE argument that
      lm() has had forever.  As a consequence, in glm(*, method      
<your_own>), user specified methods need to accept a singular.ok
      argument as well.

    > I'll take a look at the code for glm() with an eye towards
    > creating a patch, but I'm a bit reluctant to mess with the
    > code for something as important as glm().

and as a matter of fact you did send me +- the R code part of
that change.

My current plan is to also add the  'complete = TRUE' option to the
"basic" coef() methods, such that you also have consistent
coef(*, complete=FALSE)  and
vcov(*, complete=FALSE)  behaviors.

Thank you and Terry (and others?) for bringing up the issues and
discussing them thoroughly!

Best,
Martin.


    > Best, John



    >> -----Original Message----- From: Martin Maechler
    >> [mailto:maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch] Sent: Thursday,
    >> September 14, 2017 4:23 AM To: Martin Maechler
    >> <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> Cc: Fox, John
    >> <jfox at mcmaster.ca>; Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.
    >> <therneau at mayo.edu>; r-devel at r-project.org Subject: Re:
    >> [Rd] vcov and survival
    >> 
    >> >>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch> >>>>>
    >> on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:13:02 +0200 writes:
    >> 
    >> >>>>> Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca>
>>>>> on Wed, 13 Sep
    >> 2017 22:45:07 +0000 writes:
    >> 
    >> >> Dear Terry, >> Even the behaviour of lm() and glm()
    >> isn't entirely consistent. In both cases, singularity
    >> results in NA coefficients by default, and these are
    >> reported in the model summary and coefficient vector, but
    >> not in the coefficient covariance matrix:
    >> 
    >> >> ----------------
    >> 
    >> >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
    >> Population), >> + data=longley) >>> summary(mod.lm)
    >> 
    >> >> Call: >> lm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population +
    >> I(GNP + Population), >> data = longley)
    >> 
    >> >> Residuals: >> Min 1Q Median 3Q Max >> -0.80899
    >> -0.33282 -0.02329 0.25895 1.08800
    >> 
    >> >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)
    >> >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) >>
(Intercept)
    >> 88.93880 13.78503 6.452 2.16e-05 *** >> GNP 0.06317
    >> 0.01065 5.933 4.96e-05 *** >> Population -0.40974 0.15214
    >> -2.693 0.0184 * >> I(GNP + Population) NA NA NA NA
    >> >> ---
    >> >> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01
'*' 0.05 '.'
    >> 0.1 ' ' 1
    >> 
    >> >> Residual standard error: 0.5459 on 13 degrees of
    >> freedom >> Multiple R-squared: 0.9791, Adjusted
    >> R-squared: 0.9758 >> F-statistic: 303.9 on 2 and 13 DF,
    >> p-value: 1.221e-11
    >> 
    >> >>> vcov(mod.lm) >> (Intercept) GNP Population
>>
    >> (Intercept) 190.0269691 0.1445617813 -2.0954381 >> GNP
    >> 0.1445618 0.0001133631 -0.0016054 >> Population
    >> -2.0954381 -0.0016053999 0.0231456 >>> coef(mod.lm)
>>
    >> (Intercept) GNP Population I(GNP + Population) >>
    >> 88.93879831 0.06317244 -0.40974292 NA
    >> >>>
    >> >>> mod.glm <- glm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP
+
    >> Population), >> + data=longley) >>> summary(mod.glm)
    >> 
    >> >> Call: >> glm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population +
    >> I(GNP + Population), >> data = longley)
    >> 
    >> >> Deviance Residuals: >> Min 1Q Median 3Q Max >>
    >> -0.80899 -0.33282 -0.02329 0.25895 1.08800
    >> 
    >> >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)
    >> >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) >>
(Intercept)
    >> 88.93880 13.78503 6.452 2.16e-05 *** >> GNP 0.06317
    >> 0.01065 5.933 4.96e-05 *** >> Population -0.40974 0.15214
    >> -2.693 0.0184 * >> I(GNP + Population) NA NA NA NA
    >> >> ---
    >> >> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01
'*' 0.05 '.'
    >> 0.1 ' ' 1
    >> 
    >> >> (Dispersion parameter for gaussian family taken to be
    >> 0.2980278)
    >> 
    >> >> Null deviance: 185.0088 on 15 degrees of freedom >>
    >> Residual deviance: 3.8744 on 13 degrees of freedom >>
    >> AIC: 30.715
    >> 
    >> >> Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 2
    >> 
    >> >>> coef(mod.glm) >> (Intercept) GNP Population
I(GNP +
    >> Population) >> 88.93879831 0.06317244 -0.40974292 NA
>>>
    >> vcov(mod.glm) >> (Intercept) GNP Population >>
    >> (Intercept) 190.0269691 0.1445617813 -2.0954381 >> GNP
    >> 0.1445618 0.0001133631 -0.0016054 >> Population
    >> -2.0954381 -0.0016053999 0.0231456
    >> 
    >> >> ----------------
    >> 
    >> >> Moreoever, lm() has a singular.ok() argument that
    >> defaults to TRUE, but glm() doesn't have this argument:
    >> 
    >> >> ----------------
    >> 
    >> >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP +
    >> Population), >> + data=longley, singular.ok=FALSE) >>
    >> Error in lm.fit(x, y, offset = offset, singular.ok     >>
singular.ok, ...) : >> singular fit encountered
    >> 
    >> >> ----------------
    >> 
    >> >> In my opinion, singularity should at least produce a
    >> warning, both in calls to lm() and glm(), and in
    >> summary() output. Even better, again in my opinion, would
    >> be to produce an error by default in this situation, but
    >> doing so would likely break too much existing code.
    >> 
    >> > Yes, I would not want to change.  Note that this is
    >> from S > already, i.e., long "ingrained".  I think
there
    >> one argument was > that there are situations with factor
    >> predictors of many levels > and conceptually their 2- or
    >> even 3-way interactions (!)  > where it is neat to just
    >> fit the model, (-> get residuals and > fitted values) and
    >> also see implicitly the "necessary rank" of >
prediction
    >> space, or rather even more specifically, you see for >
    >> every factor how many levels are "distinguishable"/useful
    >> for > prediction, given the data.
    >> 
    >> >> I prefer NA to 0 for the redundant coefficients
    >> because it at least suggests that the decision about what
    >> to exclude is arbitrary, and of course simply excluding
    >> coefficients isn't the only way to proceed.
    >> 
    >> > I'm less modest and would say *definitely*, NA's are
    >> highly > prefered in such a situation.
    >> 
    >> >> Finally, the differences in behaviour between coef()
    >> and vcov() and between lm() and glm() aren't really
    >> sensible.
    >> 
    >> > I really haven't seen any difference between lm() and
    >> glm() in > the example above.  Maybe you can point them
    >> out for me.
    >> 
    >> .. now I saw it: lm() has a 'singular.ok = TRUE' argument
    >> which you can set to FALSE if you prefer an error to NA
    >> coefficients.
    >> 
    >> I also agree with you John that it would be nice if glm()
    >> also got such an argument.  Patches are welcome and seem
    >> easy. Nowadays we prefer them as attachments (diff/patch
    >> file!) at R's https://bugs.r-project.org bugzilla against
    >> the svn source, here
    >> https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/R/glm.R
    >> and
    >> https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/man/glm.Rd
    >> 
    >> > I do quite agree that vcov() should be compatible with
    >> > coef() [and summary()] for both 'lm' and 'glm'
methods,
    >> i.e., > should get NA rows and columns there.  This would
    >> require > eliminating these before e.g. using it in
    >> solve(<vcov>, *) etc, > but I think it would be a good
    >> idea that the useR must deal with > these NAs actively.
    >> 
    >> > Shall "we" try and see the fallout in CRAN space?
    >> 
    >> >> Maybe there's some reason for all this that escapes
    >> me.  > (for the first one---"no error"--- I gave a
    >> reason)
    >> 
    >> >> Best, >> John
    >> 
    >> >> --------------------------------------
    >> >> John Fox, Professor Emeritus >> McMaster University
>>
    >> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada >> Web:
    >> socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: R-devel
    >> [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of >>>
    >> Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.  >>> Sent: Wednesday, September
    >> 13, 2017 6:19 PM >>> To: r-devel at r-project.org
>>>
    >> Subject: [Rd] vcov and survival
    >> >>>
    >> >>> I have just noticed a difference in behavior between
    >> coxph and lm/glm: >>> if one or more of the coefficients
    >> from the fit in NA, then lm and glm >>> omit that
    >> row/column from the variance matrix; while coxph retains
    >> it >>> but sets the values to zero.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Is this something that should be "fixed",
i.e., made
    >> to agree? I >>> suspect that doing so will break other
    >> packages, but then NA coefs are >>> rather rare so
    >> perhaps not.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Terry Therneau

Fox, John

2017-Nov-07 22:09 UTC

head link

[Rd] New vcov(*, complete=TRUE) etc -- coef(<lm>) vs coef(<aov>)

Dear Martin,

I think that your plan makes sense. It's too bad that aov() behaved
differently in this respect from lm(), and thus created more work, but it's
not be a bad thing that the difference is now explicit and documented.

I expect that that other problems like this will surface, particularly with
contributed packages (and I know that you're aware that this has already
happened with the car package). That is, packages that made provision for
aliased coefficients based on the old behaviour of coef() and vcov() will now
have to adapt to the new, more consistent behaviour.

Best,
 John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Martin
> Maechler
> Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 4:48 PM
> To: r-devel at r-project.org
> Cc: Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
> Subject: [Rd] New vcov(*, complete=TRUE) etc -- coef(<lm>) vs
coef(<aov>)
> 
> >>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
> >>>>>     on Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:59:00 +0100 writes:
> 
> >>>>> Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca>
> >>>>>     on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:46:44 +0000 writes:
> 
>     >> Dear Martin, I made three points which likely got lost
>     >> because of the way I presented them:
> 
>     >> (1) Singularity is an unusual situation and should be
>     >> made more prominent. It typically reflects a problem with
>     >> the data or the specification of the model. That's not to
>     >> say that it *never* makes sense to allow singular fits
>     >> (as in the situations you mentions).
> 
>     >> I'd favour setting singular.ok=FALSE as the default, but
>     >> in the absence of that a warning or at least a note. A
>     >> compromise would be to have a singular.ok option() that
>     >> would be FALSE out of the box.
> 
>     >> Any changes would have to be made very carefully so as
>     >> not to create chaos.
> 
>     > I for one, am too reluctant to want to change the default
>     > there.
> 
>     >> That goes for the points below as well.
> 
>     >> (2) coef() and vcov() behave inconsistently, which can be
>     >> problematic because one often uses them together in code.
> 
>     > indeed; and I had agreed on that.  As of today, in R-devel
>     > only they now behave compatibly.  NEWS entry
> 
>     >     ? The ?default? ("lm" etc) methods of vcov() have
>     > gained new optional argument complete = TRUE which makes
>     > the vcov() methods more consistent with the coef() methods
>     > in the case of singular designs.  The former behavior is
>     > now achieved by vcov(*, complete=FALSE).
> 
> 
>     >> (3) As you noticed in your second message, lm() has a
>     >> singular.ok argument and glm() doesn't.
> 
>     > and that has been amended even earlier (a bit more than a
>     > month ago) in R-devel svn rev 73380 with NEWS entry
> 
>     >     ? glm() and glm.fit get the same singular.ok=TRUE
>     > argument that lm() has had forever.  As a consequence, in
>     > glm(*, method = <your_own>), user specified methods need
>     > to accept a singular.ok argument as well.
> 
>     >> I'll take a look at the code for glm() with an eye
>     >> towards creating a patch, but I'm a bit reluctant to mess
>     >> with the code for something as important as glm().
> 
>     > and as a matter of fact you did send me +- the R code part
>     > of that change.
> 
>     > My current plan is to also add the 'complete = TRUE'
>     > option to the "basic" coef() methods, such that you also
>     > have consistent coef(*, complete=FALSE) and vcov(*,
>     > complete=FALSE) behaviors.
> 
> and indeed I had added the above a bit later.
> 
> However, to my surprise, I have now found that we have a
> coef.aov() method -- completely undocumented which behaves *differently*:
> 
> where as the default coef() method which is called for lm(..) results gives
*all*
> coefficients, and gives  NA  for "aliased" ones, the aov method
*drops* the  NA
> coefficients  and has done so "forever"  (I've checked R
version 1.1.1 of April 14,
> 2000).
> 
> vcov() on the other hand has not had a special "aov" method, but
treats aov()
> and lm() results the same... which means that in R-devel the vcov() method
for
> an aov() object  uses 'complete=TRUE' and gives NA rows and columns
for the
> aliased coefficients, whereas  coef.aov()  removes all the NAs  and  gives
only
> the
> "non-aliased" coefficients.   Consequently, in R-devel,
> vcov(<aov>) and coef(<aov>)  are *now* incoherent, whereas
these two
> *were* coherent before the change.
> 
> I propose to
> 1. continue the strategy to keep coef() back-compatible  and 2. to
*document*
> the "surprising" behavior of coef.aov() 3. introduce a 
vcov.aov()  with
> complete=FALSE  default
>    behavior which is compatile to the coef.aov() one [where I'd
>    also introduce the no-change  'complete=FALSE' argument].
> 
> Hmm... again, this has been more work and more implications than originally
> optimistically assumed..
> 
> Opinions, caveats, other feedback -- are very welcome!
> 
> Martin
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Martin Maechler

2017-Nov-09 10:27 UTC

head link

[Rd] New vcov(*, complete=TRUE) etc -- coef(<lm>) vs coef(<aov>)

>>>>> Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca>
>>>>>     on Tue, 7 Nov 2017 22:09:03 +0000 writes:
    > Dear Martin, I think that your plan makes sense. It's too
    > bad that aov() behaved differently in this respect from
    > lm(), and thus created more work, but it's not be a bad
    > thing that the difference is now explicit and documented.

    > I expect that that other problems like this will surface,
    > particularly with contributed packages (and I know that
    > you're aware that this has already happened with the car
    > package). That is, packages that made provision for
    > aliased coefficients based on the old behaviour of coef()
    > and vcov() will now have to adapt to the new, more
    > consistent behaviour.

    > Best, John

Thank you John for the confirmation (and see below).

    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> >>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch>
    >> >>>>>     on Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:59:00 +0100 writes:
    >> 
    >> >>>>> Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca>
    >> >>>>>     on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:46:44 +0000 writes:
    >> 
    >> >> Dear Martin, I made three points which likely got lost
    >> >> because of the way I presented them:
    >> 
    >> >> (1) Singularity is an unusual situation and should be
    >> >> made more prominent. It typically reflects a problem with
    >> >> the data or the specification of the model. That's not
to
    >> >> say that it *never* makes sense to allow singular fits
    >> >> (as in the situations you mentions).
    >> 
    >> >> I'd favour setting singular.ok=FALSE as the default,
but
    >> >> in the absence of that a warning or at least a note. A
    >> >> compromise would be to have a singular.ok option() that
    >> >> would be FALSE out of the box.
    >> 
    >> >> Any changes would have to be made very carefully so as
    >> >> not to create chaos.
    >> 
    >> > I for one, am too reluctant to want to change the default
    >> > there.
    >> 
    >> >> That goes for the points below as well.
    >> 
    >> >> (2) coef() and vcov() behave inconsistently, which can be
    >> >> problematic because one often uses them together in code.
    >> 
    >> > indeed; and I had agreed on that.  As of today, in R-devel
    >> > only they now behave compatibly.  NEWS entry
    >> 
    >> >     ? The ?default? ("lm" etc) methods of vcov()
have
    >> > gained new optional argument complete = TRUE which makes
    >> > the vcov() methods more consistent with the coef() methods
    >> > in the case of singular designs.  The former behavior is
    >> > now achieved by vcov(*, complete=FALSE).
    >> 
    >> 
    >> >> (3) As you noticed in your second message, lm() has a
    >> >> singular.ok argument and glm() doesn't.
    >> 
    >> > and that has been amended even earlier (a bit more than a
    >> > month ago) in R-devel svn rev 73380 with NEWS entry
    >> 
    >> >     ? glm() and glm.fit get the same singular.ok=TRUE
    >> > argument that lm() has had forever.  As a consequence, in
    >> > glm(*, method = <your_own>), user specified methods need
    >> > to accept a singular.ok argument as well.
    >> 
    >> >> I'll take a look at the code for glm() with an eye
    >> >> towards creating a patch, but I'm a bit reluctant to
mess
    >> >> with the code for something as important as glm().
    >> 
    >> > and as a matter of fact you did send me +- the R code part
    >> > of that change.
    >> 
    >> > My current plan is to also add the 'complete = TRUE'
    >> > option to the "basic" coef() methods, such that you
also
    >> > have consistent coef(*, complete=FALSE) and vcov(*,
    >> > complete=FALSE) behaviors.
    >> 
    >> and indeed I had added the above a bit later.
    >> 
    >> However, to my surprise, I have now found that we have a
    >> coef.aov() method -- completely undocumented which behaves
*differently*:
    >> 
    >> where as the default coef() method which is called for lm(..)
results gives *all*
    >> coefficients, and gives  NA  for "aliased" ones, the aov
method *drops* the  NA
    >> coefficients  and has done so "forever"  (I've
checked R version 1.1.1 of April 14,
    >> 2000).
    >> 
    >> vcov() on the other hand has not had a special "aov"
method, but treats aov()
    >> and lm() results the same... which means that in R-devel the vcov()
method for
    >> an aov() object  uses 'complete=TRUE' and gives NA rows and
columns for the
    >> aliased coefficients, whereas  coef.aov()  removes all the NAs  and
gives only
    >> the
    >> "non-aliased" coefficients.   Consequently, in R-devel,
    >> vcov(<aov>) and coef(<aov>)  are *now* incoherent,
whereas these two
    >> *were* coherent before the change.

    >> I propose to

    >> 1. continue the strategy to keep coef() back-compatible and
    >> 2. to *document* the "surprising" behavior of coef.aov() 
    >> 3. introduce a  vcov.aov()  with complete=FALSE  default
    >> behavior which is compatile to the coef.aov() one [where I'd
    >> also introduce the no-change  'complete=FALSE' argument].

I have now committed the above proposal to R-devel,
svn rev 73692.

This does revert  vcov(<aov>)  default behavior in R-devel to
the R <= 3.4.x behavior...
so  an effect in package-space should rather be beneficial.

Martin Maechler
ETH Zurich

Seemingly Similar Threads

Search for more seemingly similar threads

R devel - Nov 2017 - New vcov(*, complete=TRUE) etc -- coef(<lm>) vs coef(<aov>)

[Rd] vcov and survival

[Rd] vcov and survival

[Rd] vcov and survival

[Rd] vcov and survival

[Rd] vcov and survival

[Rd] New vcov(*, complete=TRUE) etc -- coef(<lm>) vs coef(<aov>)

[Rd] New vcov(*, complete=TRUE) etc -- coef(<lm>) vs coef(<aov>)

Seemingly Similar Threads