similar to: proportion explained by each term in a GAM

Picking up an ancient thread (from Oct 2007), I have a somewhat more complex problem than given in Simon Wood's example below. My full model has more than two smooths as well as factor variables as in this simplified example: b <- gam(y~fv1+s(x1)+s(x2)+s(x3)) Judging from Simon's example, my guess is to fit reduced models to get components of deviance as follows: b1 <-

Dear R users, I read your methods of extracting the variance explained by each predictor in different places. My question is: using the method you suggested, the sum of the deviance explained by all terms is not equal to the deviance explained by the full model. Could you tell me what caused such problem? > set.seed(0) > n<-400 > x1 <- runif(n, 0, 1) > ## to see problem

Hello fellow R's, I do apologize if this is a basic question. I'm doing some GAMs using the mgcv package, and I am wondering what is the most appropriate way to determine how much of the variability in the dependent variable is explained by each term in the model. The information provided by summary.gam() relates to the significance of each term (F, p-value) and to the

Hi, I am using mgcv:gam and have developed a model with 5 smoothed predictors and one factor. gam1 <- gam(log.sp~ s(Spr.precip,bs="ts") + s(Win.precip,bs="ts") + s( Spr.Tmin,bs="ts") + s(P.sum.Tmin,bs="ts") + s( Win.Tmax,bs="ts") +factor(site),data=dat3) The total deviance explained = 70.4%. I would like to extract the variance explained

Dear list, i'm checking the residuals plots of a gam model after a processus of model selection. I found the "best" model, all my terms are significant, the r-square and the deviance explained are good, but I have strange residuals plots: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1169100/gam.check.png http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1169100/residuals_vs_fitted.png What does explains the "curve"

The plots look reasonable to me. The plot of residuals against linear predictor always looks scary when many of the fitted values are very close to zero, so I tend to look at residuals against sqrt(fitted) in such cases. I don't think that the presence of the zero curve is a reason to reject the model --- it's easy to produce such plots by fitting a completely correct model to simulated

Hi, Does anyone know how to fit a GAM where one or more smooth terms are constrained to be monotonic, in the presence of "by" variables or other terms? I looked at the example in ?pcls but so far have not been able to adapt it to the case where there is more than one predictor. For example, require(mgcv) set.seed(0) n<-100 # Generate data from a monotonic truth.

Hello R Users, I have a question regarding fitting a model with GAM{mgcv}. I have data from several predictor (X) variables I wish to use to develop a model to predict one Y variable. I am working with ecological data, so have data collected many times (about 20) over the course of two years. Plotting data independently for each date there appears to be relationships between Y (fish density)

Hi, I am fitting two models, a generalized linear model and a generalized additive model, to the same data. The R-Help tells that "A generalized additive model (GAM) is a generalized linear model (GLM) in which the linear predictor is given by a user specified sum of smooth functions of the covariates plus a conventional parametric component of the linear predictor." I am fitting the GAM

I am new to R. I'm using the function GAM and wanted to get standard errors and p-values for the parametric terms (I fitted a semi-parametric models). Using the function anova() on the object from GAM, I only get p-values for the nonparametric terms. Does anyone know if and how to get standard errors for the parametric terms? Thanks. Jean G. Orelien

hi, i'm using gam() function from package mgcv with default option (edf estimated by GCV). >G=gam(y ~ s(x0, k = 5) + s(x1) + s(x2, k = 3)) >SG=summary(G) Formula: y ~ +s(x0, k = 5) + s(x1) + s(x2, k = 3) Parametric coefficients: Estimate std. err. t ratio Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 3.462e+07 1.965e+05 176.2 < 2.22e-16 Approximate significance of smooth

Hi, suppose i have a gam object gamobject<- gam( Y~ s(X1)+s(X2)+ X3) I would like to extract the predicted partial effect of X3 but selecting it by its name, as it's to be included in a function and i don't always know the exact position of X3. something like predict(gamobject,type="terms")["X3",]. But that doesn't work as there's no name. So, looking

I am a little bit confusing about the following help message on how to fit a GAM model with interaction between factor and smooth terms from http://rss.acs.unt.edu/Rdoc/library/mgcv/html/gam.models.html: ?Sometimes models of the form: E(y)=b0+f(x)z need to be estimated (where f is a smooth function, as usual.) The appropriate formula is: y~z+s(x,by=z) - the by argument ensures that the smooth

Hi, all, Does anyone know how to get the functional form of the smooth terms in GAM? eg. I fit y=a+b*s(x) where s is the smooth function. After fitting this model with GAM in R, I want to know the form of the s(x). Any suggestion is appreciated. Thanks, Jin --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?

I am trying to compare and contrast the smoothing in the {mgcv} version of gam vs. the {gam} version of gam but I get a strange side effects when I try to alternate calls to these routines, even though I detach and unload namespaces. Specifically when I start up R the following code runs successfully until the last line i.e. plot(g4,se=TRUE) when I get "Error in dim(data) <- dim :

Hello, I am using the function step.gam() from the 'gam' package (header info from library(help=gam) included below) and have come across some behavior that I cannot understand. In short, I have written a function that 1) creates a dataframe, 2) calls gam() to create a gam object, then 3) calls step.gam() to run stepwise selection on the output from gam(). When I do this, gam()

Dear Trevor, I've noticed a discrepancy in the degrees of freedom reported by gam() from the gam package in R vs. gam() in S-PLUS. The nonparametric df differ by 1; otherwise (except for things that depend upon the df), the output is the same: --------- snip ------------ *** From R (gam version 0.93): > mod.gam <- gam(prestige ~ lo(income, span=.6), data=Prestige) >

Hello, I have a question regarding model selection and dropping of terms for GAMs fitted with package mgcv. I am following the approach suggested in Wood (2001), Wood and Augustin (2002). I fitted a saturated model, and I find from the plots that for two of the covariates, 1. The confidence interval includes 0 almost everywhere 2. The degrees of freedom are NOT close to 1 3. The partial

Recently I was using GAM and couldn't help noticing the following incoherence in prediction: > data(gam.data) > data(gam.newdata) > gam.object <- gam(y ~ s(x,6) + z, data=gam.data) > predict(gam.object)[1] 1 0.8017407 > predict(gam.object,data.frame(x=gam.data$x[1],z=gam.data$z[1])) 1 0.1668452 I would expect that using two types of predict arguments

Qusetion #1 ********* Model selection in GAM can be done by using: 1. step.gam {gam} : A directional stepwise search 2. gam {mgcv} : Smoothness estimation using GCV or UBRE/AIC criterion Suppose my model starts with a additive model (linear part + spline part). Using gam() {mgcv} i got estimated degrees of freedom(edf) for the smoothing splines. Now I want to use the functional form of my model