similar to: extractAIC.coxph warning

I would like test AICc as a criteria for model selection for a glm using stepAIC() from MASS package. Based on various information available in WEB, stepAIC() use extractAIC() to get the criteria used for model selection. I have created a new extractAIC() function (and extractAIC.glm() and extractAIC.lm() ones) that use a new parameter criteria that can be AIC, BIC or AICc. It works as

I compiled samba-4.0.5 from source on Ubuntu 12.04 and was following the instructions here: http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba4/HOWTO/Join_a_domain_as_a_DC The exact command I executed was: root at va-dc:/usr/local/samba# bin/samba-tool domain join win.starpoint.com<http://win.starpoint.com> DC -Uadministrator --realm=win.starpoint.com<http://win.starpoint.com>

Hello. The sentence in extractAIC's help <http://www.stat.psu.edu/~dhunter/R/html/stats/html/extractAIC.html> which discusses AIC's estimate of -2logL from RSS reads: "AIC only handles unknown scale and uses the formula n log (RSS/n) - n + n log 2pi - sum(log w) where w are the weights. Further AIC counts the scale estimation as a parameter in the edf and extractAIC does

Dear R users: I am looking for the source code for the R function extractAIC. Type the function name doesn't help: > extractAIC function (fit, scale, k = 2, ...) UseMethod("extractAIC") <environment: namespace:stats> And when I search it in the R source code, the best I can find is in (R source root)/library/stats/R/add.R: extractAIC <- function(fit, scale, k = 2,

Use extractAIC in frailty cox model (estimated with coxph function, gaussian random effect) i obtaided > extractAIC(fit.cox.f) [1] 11.84563 8649.11736 but I don't know why I can't use the classic formulation of the AIC where the degree of freedom are the number of the parameter (in my case 3). -- View this message in context:

Hi, I have sent this message to this list the July, 7th. It was about a problem in MASS package. Until now there is no change in the devel version. As the problem occurs in a package and not in the R-core, I don't know if the message should have been sent here. Anyway, I have added a copy to Pr Ripley. I hope it could have been fixed. Sincerely Marc Le 09/07/2017 ? 16:05, Marc Girondot via

Although the 'spatial' documentation doesn't mention that extractAIC works, it does seem to give an output. I may have misunderstood, but shouldn't the following give at least the same d.f.? > library(spatial) > data(topo, package="MASS") > extractAIC(surf.ls(2, topo)) [1] 46.0000 437.5059 > extractAIC(lm(z ~ x+I(x^2)+y+I(y^2)+x:y, topo)) [1]

Dear list, I am confused about two functions in R: AIC(fm) and extractAIC(fm). What is the difference between two and when do I have to use one over the other? I have found the similar question previously and still not clear for me to understand. I also looked at '?AIC' and '?extractAIC' in R, which is also unclear. I pasted faked data set, fitting summary, and AICs. Thank

Hello, I am using a simple linear model and I would like to get an AIC value. I came across both AIC() and extractAIC() and I am not sure which is best to use. I assumed that I should use AIC for a glm and extractAIC() for lm, but if I run my model in glm the AIC value is the same if I use AIC() on an lm object. What might be going on? Did I interpret these functions incorrectly? Thanks,

Dear all, is there a function similar to extractAIC based on which I can extract the BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) of a coxph model? I found some functions that provide BIC in other packages, but none of them seems to work with coxph. Thanks, Michael [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Full_Name: Dave Ramsey Version: 1.8.0 OS: win2000 Submission from: (NULL) (202.27.240.6) there is a bug in extractAIC.survreg in library MASS. A survreg model object has no component called "residuals". Hence n <- length(fit$residuals) returns 0 resulting in errors workaround: replace n <- length(fit$residuals) with n <- length(residuals(fit)) ### sorry: error

Dear all, I have tried to modify the code of MASS:::stepAIC.default(), dropterm() and addterm() to use AICc instead of AIC for model selection. The code is appended below. Somehow the calculations are still not correct and I would be grateful if anyone could have a look at what might be wrong with this code... Here is a working example: ## require(nlme) model1=lme(distance ~ age + Sex, data =

Full_Name: John E. Kolassa Version: Version 1.8.1 OS: Solaris Submission from: (NULL) (128.6.76.36) Stepwise model selection for coxph appears to fail with method="exact". The code step(coxph(Surv(1:100,rep(1,100))~factor(rep(1:4,25)),method="exact")) produces the error message Start: AIC= 733.07 Surv(1:100, rep(1, 100)) ~ factor(rep(1:4, 25)) Error in

I would like to figure out the equations for calculating "AIC" in both "step() function" and "AIC () function". They are different. Then I just type "step" in the R console, and found the "AIC" used in "step() function" is "extractAIC". I went to the R help, and found: "The criterion used is AIC = - 2*log L + k *

By changing three lines in drop1 from access based on $ to access based on standard accessor methods (terms() and residuals()), it becomes *much* easier to extend drop1 to work with other model types. The use of $ rather than accessors in this context seems to be an oversight rather than a design decision, but maybe someone knows better ... In particular, if one makes these changes (which I am

--Multipart_Wed_Feb__4_12:25:40_1998-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Jim, I am relating your message to R-devel. This should be discussed in a broader audience; I am not an expert on GLM's, I know you are and others on this group also... R-develers, please CC to Jim Lindsey (on this topic), since he hasn't been part of the R-devel list for a while.. BTW: I will be gone

I had a look at some influence measures, and it seems to me that currently several methods handle multiple lm (mlm) objects wrongly in R. In some cases there are separate "mlm" methods, but usually "mlm" objects are handled by the same methods as univariate "lm" methods, and in some cases this fails. There are two general patterns of problems in influence measures:

I have been implementing a proposal of Jim Lindsey for glm(.) to return AIC values, and print.glm(.) and print.summary.glm(.) printing them.... however: >>>>> "Jim" == Jim Lindsey <jlindsey@luc.ac.be> writes: Jim> The problem still remains of getting the correct AIC when the user Jim> wants the scale parameter to be fixed. (The calculation should

Dear R users, According Brockwell & Davis (1991, Section 9.3, p.304), the penalty term for computing the AIC criteria is "p+q+1" in the context of a zero-mean ARMA(p,q) time series model. They arrived at this criterion (with this particular penalty term) estimating the Kullback-Leibler discrepancy index. In practice, the user usually chooses the model whose estimated index is

Hi Folks, I've got a question concerning the calculation of the Schwarz-Criterion (BIC) done by summary.regsubsets() of the leaps-package: Using regsubsets() to perform subset-selection I receive an regsubsets object that can be summarized by summary.regsubsets(). After this operation the resulting summary contains a vector of BIC-values representing models of size i=1,...,K. My problem