Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "0.25895".
2017 Sep 13
3
vcov and survival
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)
>
2017 Sep 14
0
vcov and survival
>>>>> 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
2017 Sep 14
6
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,
2017 Sep 14
0
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
2017 Nov 02
2
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
2017 Sep 14
0
vcov and survival
Dear Terry,
It's not surprising that different modeling functions behave differently in this respect because there's no articulated standard.
Please see my response to Martin for my take on the singular.ok argument. For a highly sophisticated user like you, singular.ok=TRUE isn't problematic -- you're not going to fail to notice an NA in the coefficient vector -- but I've