similar to: What to do with positive likelihoods

Dear list, following a previous querry we are still stuck! As pointed out by Erin Hodges the "ts" library includes a PACF function which reports the partial correlation of population density at time t against lagged population density. However, what we are trying to calculate is the partial correlation between rate of population change, Rt=log Nt/Nt-1, against lagged population

Dear all, is there a way to extract individual likelihoods from a glm/lrm object? By individual likelihoods, I mean the likelihoods whose product give the overall likelihood of the model. I guess the code in the base package, used to compute the Akaike Information Criterion may help me. However, I couldn't figure it out, probably because I'm rather new to likelihood theory and ML

Is there a way to append to the outfile when using R CMD BATCH? My code, right now, is: R CMD BATCH --slave --vanilla '--args place .2 -.1 .9 .6' StratificationSimulation example.output Everything else is working the way I'd like it. The first few lines of code of my script file are: options(echo=FALSE) cmd_args = commandArgs() print (cmd_args) #d <-

As part of carrying out a complicated maximum likelihood estimation, I am trying to learn to program likelihoods in R. I started with a simple probit model but am unable to get the code to work. Any help or suggestions are most welcome. I give my code below: ************************************ mlogl <- function(mu, y, X) { n <- nrow(X) zeta <- X%*%mu llik <- 0 for (i in 1:n) { if

Kia ora I'm a using lme (from nlme package) with data similar to the Orthodont dataset and am getting positive log-likelihoods (>100). This seems usual and I wondered if someone could offer a possible explanation. I can supply a sample dataset if requested, but I feel almost certain that this question has been asked and answered recently. However, I can find no trace of it in the mail

Dear R-people, I have to compute C - -(pnorm(B)*dnorm(B)*B + dnorm(B)^2)/pnorm(B)^2 This expression seems to be converging to -1 if B approaches to -Inf (although I am unable to prove it). R has no problems until B equals around -28 or less, where both numerator and denominator go to 0 and you get NaN. A simple workaround I did was C <- ifelse(B > -25, -(pnorm(B)*dnorm(B)*B

I believe that this may be more appropriate here in r-devel than in r-help. The normal hazard function, or reciprocal Mill's Ratio, may be obtained in R as dnorm(z)/(1 - pnorm(z)) or, better, as dnorm(z)/pnorm(-z) for small values of z. The latter formula breaks dowm numerically for me (running R 2.4.1 under Windows XP 5.1 SP 2) for values of z near 37.4 or greater. Looking at the pnorm

Hello, I am trying to do a fit a loglikelihood function with Multivariate distribution via copulas with fitMdvc. The problem is that it doesn't recognize that my beta is a vector of km parameter and when I try to run it it say that the length of my initial values is not the same as the parameter. Can somebody guide me where my mistake is. Thanks, Elisa. #################################

> version _ platform i686-pc-linux-gnu arch i686 os linux-gnu system i686, linux-gnu status major 1 minor 7.1 year 2003 month 06 day 16 language R Bug: integrate(f,lower,upper,extra_args) where f <- function(x,extra_args) { body } integrate doesn't pass the extra arguments when calling f. As a first check of this finding I integrated dnorm from

Hi all, I want to solve the following equation for x with rho <- 0.5 pnorm(-x)*pnorm((rho*dnorm(x)/pnorm(x)-x)/sqrt(1-rho^2))==0.05 Is there a function in R to do this? Thank you very much! Hannah [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

This practical problem in maximum likelihood estimation must be encountered quite a bit. What do you do when a data point has a probability that comes out in numerical evaluation to zero? In calculating the log likelihood you then have a log(0) problem. Here is a simple example (probit) which illustrates the problem: x<-c(1,2,3,4,100) ntrials<-100 yes<-round(ntrials*pnorm((x-3)/1))

Dear R people The function below should be decreasing, convex, and tend to zero when x tends to infinity. curve((1-pnorm(x))/dnorm(x),from=0, to=9) >From the plot we see that for x between 8.0 and 8.3 the function is fluctuating. As far as I understand, this is due to the function pnorm() not being sufficiently accurate in the tails. I am using pnorm() in a way that has probably not been

Hi all; I recently have been used 'maxLik' function for maximizing G2StNV178 function with gradient function gradlik; for receiving this goal, I write the following program; but I have been seen an error  in calling gradient  function; The maxLik function can't enter gradlik function (definition of gradient function); I guess my mistake is in line ******** ,that the vector  ‘h’ is

Hi, I already found a conversation on the integration of a normal distribution and two suggested solutions (https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2007-January/124008.html): 1) integrate(dnorm, 0,1, mean = 0, sd = 1.2) and 2) pnorm(1, mean = 0, sd = 1.2) - pnorm(0, mean = 0, sd = 1.2) where the pnorm-approach is supposed to be faster and with higher precision. I want to integrate a mixed

Rembert.DeBlander@econ.kuleuven.ac.be wrote: >>version > PLEASE: a) Use a sensible subject line b) Please post only post bug reports if you are sure it is a bug (and here it is not a bug!) c) Check the recent R version (1.9.1) if posting bugs, not an outdated one! d) Only named arguments are passed through the ... argument: integrate(dnorm, lower=-Inf, upper=3, mean=-1, sd=7) Uwe

Hello, Rlisters I have to compute p-values that are on the tail of the distribution, P-values < 10^-20. However, my current implementations enable one to estimate P-values up to 10^-12, or so. A typical example is found below, where t is my critical value. ########### example - code adapted from Rassoc ####################### rho01 = 0.5 rho105 = 0.5 rho005 = 0.5 t = 8 z = 2

Greetings- a reviewer for a paper of mine noted an anomaly in some models I ran using glmmPQL (from the MASS package). Specifically, the models are three-level hierarchical probit models estimated using PQL under R. The anomaly is that the log-likelihoods decrease (or, alternatively -2logLik increases) as variables are added to the null model. This is unusual, and I'm trying to figure out

Hi. Thanks for your help with my previous question (comparing two lm() models with a maximum likelihood ratio test) I had a look at lrtest from the package lmtest as it has been suggested to me, but I am not 100% sure if that is the right thing to do ... lrtest uses the same log likelihoods as you can extract by hand from lm() with logLik - are this the maximum log likelihoods? How does R

Hello, I've been looking in the on-line manuals and searching past posts but can't find an answer to this question. I'd like to define my own variance function in a GLM. The function glm(formula, family=quasi(var="var function")) lets me choose from a selection of built in variances, but I want to define my own function for the variance. Is there an S-plus

Hi, I've got an ugly but fairly simple function: mdevstdev <- function(a){ l <- dnorm(a)/(1-pnorm(a)) integrand <- function(z)(abs(z-l)*dnorm(z)) inted <- integrate(integrand, a, Inf) inted[[1]]/((1- pnorm(a))*sqrt((1 + a*l - l^2))) } I wanted to quickly produce a graph of this over the range [-3,3] so I used: plotit <-function(x=seq(-3,3,0.01),...){