Dear R-List users, Can anyone explain exactly the difference between Weights options in lm glm and gls? I try the following codes, but the results are different.> lm1Call: lm(formula = y ~ x) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.1183 7.3075> lm2Call: lm(formula = y ~ x, weights = W) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.04193 7.30660> lm3Call: lm(formula = ys ~ Xs - 1) Coefficients: Xs Xsx 0.04193 7.30660 Here ys= y*sqrt(W), Xs<- sqrt(W)*cbind(1,x) So we can see weights here for lm means the scale for X and y. But for glm and gls I try> glm1Call: glm(formula = y ~ x) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.1183 7.3075 Degrees of Freedom: 1242 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual Null Deviance: 1049000 Residual Deviance: 28210 AIC: 7414> glm2Call: glm(formula = y ~ x, weights = W) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.1955 7.3053 Degrees of Freedom: 1242 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual Null Deviance: 1548000 Residual Deviance: 44800 AIC: 11670> glm3Call: glm(formula = y ~ x, weights = 1/W) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.03104 7.31033 Degrees of Freedom: 1242 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual Null Deviance: 798900 Residual Deviance: 19900 AIC: 5285> glm4Call: glm(formula = ys ~ Xs - 1) Coefficients: Xs Xsx 2.687 6.528 Degrees of Freedom: 1243 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual Null Deviance: 4490000 Residual Deviance: 506700 AIC: 11000 With weights, the glm did not give the same results as lm why? Also for gls, I use varFixed here.> gls3Generalized least squares fit by REML Model: y ~ x Data: NULL Log-restricted-likelihood: -3737.392 Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.03104214 7.31032540 Variance function: Structure: fixed weights Formula: ~W Degrees of freedom: 1243 total; 1241 residual Residual standard error: 4.004827> gls4Generalized least squares fit by REML Model: ys ~ Xs - 1 Data: NULL Log-restricted-likelihood: -5500.311 Coefficients: Xs Xsx 2.687205 6.527893 Degrees of freedom: 1243 total; 1241 residual Residual standard error: 20.20705 We can see the relation between glm and gls with weight as what I think, but what's the difference between lm wit gls and glm? why? Thanks so much.! Goeland [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Dear r-users?? Can anyone explain exactly the difference between Weights options in lm glm and gls? I try the following codes, but the results are different.> lm1Call: lm(formula = y ~ x) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.1183 7.3075> lm2Call: lm(formula = y ~ x, weights = W) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.04193 7.30660> lm3Call: lm(formula = ys ~ Xs - 1) Coefficients: Xs Xsx 0.04193 7.30660 Here ys= y*sqrt(W), Xs<- sqrt(W)*cbind(1,x) So we can see weights here for lm means the scale for X and y. But for glm and gls I try> glm1Call: glm(formula = y ~ x) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.1183 7.3075 Degrees of Freedom: 1242 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual Null Deviance: 1049000 Residual Deviance: 28210 AIC: 7414> glm2Call: glm(formula = y ~ x, weights = W) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.1955 7.3053 Degrees of Freedom: 1242 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual Null Deviance: 1548000 Residual Deviance: 44800 AIC: 11670> glm3Call: glm(formula = y ~ x, weights = 1/W) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.03104 7.31033 Degrees of Freedom: 1242 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual Null Deviance: 798900 Residual Deviance: 19900 AIC: 5285> glm4Call: glm(formula = ys ~ Xs - 1) Coefficients: Xs Xsx 2.687 6.528 Degrees of Freedom: 1243 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual Null Deviance: 4490000 Residual Deviance: 506700 AIC: 11000 With weights, the glm did not give the same results as lm why? Also for gls, I use varFixed here.> gls3Generalized least squares fit by REML Model: y ~ x Data: NULL Log-restricted-likelihood: -3737.392 Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.03104214 7.31032540 Variance function: Structure: fixed weights Formula: ~W Degrees of freedom: 1243 total; 1241 residual Residual standard error: 4.004827> gls4Generalized least squares fit by REML Model: ys ~ Xs - 1 Data: NULL Log-restricted-likelihood: -5500.311 Coefficients: Xs Xsx 2.687205 6.527893 Degrees of freedom: 1243 total; 1241 residual Residual standard error: 20.20705 We can see the relation between glm and gls with weight as what I think, but what's the difference between lm wit gls and glm? why? Thanks so much.! Goeland Goeland goeland at gmail.com 2006-03-16
Spencer Graves
2006-Mar-23 16:50 UTC
[R] DIfference between weights options in lm GLm and gls.
In my tests, "gls" did NOT give the same answers as "lm" and
"glm",
and I don't know why; perhaps someone else will enlighten us both. I
got the same answers from "lm" and "glm". Since you report
different
results, please supply a replicatable example.
I tried the following:
set.seed(1)
DF <- data.frame(x=1:8, xf=rep(c("a", "b"), 4),
y=rnorm(8), w=1:8, one=rep(1,8))
fit.lm.w <- lm(y~x, DF, weights=w)
fit.glm.w <- glm(y~x, data=DF, weights=w)
fit.gls.w <- gls(y~x, data=DF,
weights=varFixed(~w))
> coef(fit.lm.w)
(Intercept) x
-0.2667521 0.0944190> coef(fit.glm.w)
(Intercept) x
-0.2667521 0.0944190> coef(fit.gls.w)
(Intercept) x
-0.5924727 0.1608727
I also tried several variants of this. I know this does not answer
your questions, but I hope it will contribute to an answer.
spencer graves
Goeland wrote:
> Dear r-users??
>
> Can anyone explain exactly the difference between Weights options in lm glm
> and gls?
>
> I try the following codes, but the results are different.
>
>
>
>>lm1
>
>
> Call:
> lm(formula = y ~ x)
>
> Coefficients:
> (Intercept) x
> 0.1183 7.3075
>
>
>>lm2
>
>
> Call:
> lm(formula = y ~ x, weights = W)
>
> Coefficients:
> (Intercept) x
> 0.04193 7.30660
>
>
>>lm3
>
>
> Call:
> lm(formula = ys ~ Xs - 1)
>
> Coefficients:
> Xs Xsx
> 0.04193 7.30660
>
> Here ys= y*sqrt(W), Xs<- sqrt(W)*cbind(1,x)
>
> So we can see weights here for lm means the scale for X and y.
>
> But for glm and gls I try
>
>
>>glm1
>
>
> Call: glm(formula = y ~ x)
>
> Coefficients:
> (Intercept) x
> 0.1183 7.3075
>
> Degrees of Freedom: 1242 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual
> Null Deviance: 1049000
> Residual Deviance: 28210 AIC: 7414
>
>>glm2
>
>
> Call: glm(formula = y ~ x, weights = W)
>
> Coefficients:
> (Intercept) x
> 0.1955 7.3053
>
> Degrees of Freedom: 1242 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual
> Null Deviance: 1548000
> Residual Deviance: 44800 AIC: 11670
>
>>glm3
>
>
> Call: glm(formula = y ~ x, weights = 1/W)
>
> Coefficients:
> (Intercept) x
> 0.03104 7.31033
>
> Degrees of Freedom: 1242 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual
> Null Deviance: 798900
> Residual Deviance: 19900 AIC: 5285
>
>
>>glm4
>
>
> Call: glm(formula = ys ~ Xs - 1)
>
> Coefficients:
> Xs Xsx
> 2.687 6.528
>
> Degrees of Freedom: 1243 Total (i.e. Null); 1241 Residual
> Null Deviance: 4490000
> Residual Deviance: 506700 AIC: 11000
>
> With weights, the glm did not give the same results as lm why?
>
> Also for gls, I use varFixed here.
>
>
>>gls3
>
> Generalized least squares fit by REML
> Model: y ~ x
> Data: NULL
> Log-restricted-likelihood: -3737.392
>
> Coefficients:
> (Intercept) x
> 0.03104214 7.31032540
>
> Variance function:
> Structure: fixed weights
> Formula: ~W
> Degrees of freedom: 1243 total; 1241 residual
> Residual standard error: 4.004827
>
>>gls4
>
> Generalized least squares fit by REML
> Model: ys ~ Xs - 1
> Data: NULL
> Log-restricted-likelihood: -5500.311
>
> Coefficients:
> Xs Xsx
> 2.687205 6.527893
>
> Degrees of freedom: 1243 total; 1241 residual
> Residual standard error: 20.20705
>
> We can see the relation between glm and gls with weight as what
>
> I think, but what's the difference between lm wit gls and glm? why?
>
> Thanks so much.!
>
> Goeland
>
>
>
> Goeland
> goeland at gmail.com
> 2006-03-16
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide!
http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html