similar to: aic() component in GLM-family objects

FWIW p. 206 of the White Book gives the following for names(binomial()): family, names, link, inverse, deriv, initialize, variance, deviance, weight. So $aic wasn't there In The Beginning. I haven't done any more archaeology to try to figure out when/by whom it was first introduced ... Section 6.3.3, on extending families, doesn't give any other relevant info. A patch for

>>>>> Ben Bolker >>>>> on Sun, 3 Jun 2018 17:33:18 -0400 writes: > Is it generally known/has it been previously discussed here that the > $aic() component in GLM-family objects (e.g. results of binomial(), > poisson(), etc.) does not as implemented actually return the AIC, but > rather -2*log-likelihood + 2*(model_has_scale_parameter)

Dear list, I'm trying to mimic the analysis of Wedderburn (1974) as cited by McCullagh and Nelder (1989) on p.328-332. This is the leaf-blotch on barley example, and the data is available in the `faraway' package. Wedderburn suggested using the variance function mu^2(1-mu)^2. This variance function isn't readily available in R's `quasi' family object, but it seems to me

Dear R-Users, I can't understand the behaviour of quasibinomial in lmer. It doesn't appear to be calculating a scaling parameter, and looks to be reducing the standard errors of fixed effects estimates when overdispersion is present (and when it is not present also)! A simple demo of what I'm seeing is given below. Comments appreciated? Thanks, Russell Millar Dept of Stat U.

Dear R users I have been looking for functions that can deal with overdispersed poisson models. Some (one) of the observations are negative. According to actuarial literature (England & Verall, Stochastic Claims Reserving in General Insurance , Institute of Actiuaries 2002) this can be handled through the use of quasi likelihoods instead of normal likelihoods. The presence of negatives is not

This is not so much a bug as an infelicity in the code that can easily be fixed. The initialize expression in the quasi family function is, (uniformly for all links and all variance functions): initialize <- expression({ n <- rep.int(1, nobs) mustart <- y + 0.1 * (y == 0) }) This is inappropriate (and often fails) for variance function "mu(1-mu)".

Greetings, everyone. I've been trying to analyze bird nest survival data using generalized linear mixed models (because we documented several consecutive nesting attempts by the same individuals; i.e. repeated measures data) and have been unable to persuade the various GLMM models to work with my user-defined link function. Actually, glmmPQL seems to work, but as I want to evaluate a suite of

I'm attempting to do model selection with AIC, using a glm and a lognormal distribution, but: fit1<-glm(BA~Year,data=pdat.sp1.65.04, family=gaussian(link="log")) ## gives the same result as either of the following: fit1<-glm(BA~Year,data=pdat.sp1.65.04, family=gaussian) fit1<-lm(BA~Year,data=pdat.sp1.65.04) fit1 #Coefficients: #(Intercept) Year2004 # -1.6341

G'day all, I had a look at the GLM code of R (1.4.1) and I believe that there are problems with the function "glm.fit" that may bite in rare circumstances. Note, I have no data set with which I ran into trouble. This report is solely based on having a look at the code. Below I append a listing of the glm.fit function as produced by my system. I have added line numbers so that I

r-help at lists.R-project.org ? Hello ? First I want to implement exponential regression in R, with out constant for the following formula. Y = exp(a*X) ?a? is coefficient I wanted to determine. That I could do also in SPSS but my question is rather to estimate the ?standard error of ??i ?at each Xi. This is called in SPSS ?satndard error of mean prediction? or generally known for non-linear

Dear R users, I am having problems trying to fit quasipoisson and negative binomials glm. My data set contains abundance (counts) of a species under different management regimens. First, I tried to fit a poisson glm: > summary(model.p<-glm(abund~mgmtcat,poisson)) Call: glm(formula = abund ~ mgmtcat, family = poisson) . . . (Dispersion parameter

# Hello R Users, # # I would like to fit a glm model with quasi family and # logistical link function, but this does not seam to work # with binary data. # # Please don't suggest to use the quasibinomial family. This # works out, but when applied to the true data, the # variance function does not seams to be # appropriate. # # I couldn't see in the # theory why this does not work. # Is

How might you fit a generalized linear model (glm) with variance = mu+theta*mu^2 (where mu = mean of the exponential family random variable and theta is a parameter to be estimated)? This appears in Table 2.7 of Fahrmeir and Tutz (2001) Multivariate Statisticial Modeling Based on Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed. (Springer, p. 60), where they compare "log-linear model fits to

Dear all, I am analysing growth data - response variable - using GAM and GAMM models, and 4 covariates: mean size, mean capture year, growth interval, having tumors vs. not The models work fine, and fit the data well, however when I try to compare models using AIC I cannot get an AIC value. This is the code for the gam model:

Hi Folks! Just started using the gamlss package and I tried a simple code example (see below). Why the negative sigma? John > y <- rt(100, df=1)> m1<-fitDist(y, type="realline")Warning messages:1: In MLE(ll3, start = list(eta.mu = eta.mu, eta.sigma = eta.sigma, : possible convergence problem: optim gave code=1 false convergence (8)2: In MLE(ll4, start = list(eta.mu =

Dear R Users, May be this message should be directy send to Douglas Bates ... I just want to know if I can use the AIC value given in the output of an lmer model to classify my logistic models. I heard that the AIC value given in GLIMMIX output (SAS) is false because it come from a calculation based on pseudo-likelyhood. Is it the same for lmer ??? thanks, Arnaud Arnaud MOSNIER Biologiste

Dear List, Apologies for this off-topic post but it is R-related in the sense that I am trying to understand what R is telling me with the data to hand. ROC curves have recently been used to determine a dissimilarity threshold for identifying whether two samples are from the same "type" or not. Given the bashing that ROC curves get whenever anyone asks about them on this list (and

It seems that MASS suggest to judge on the basis of sum(residuals(mode,type="pearson"))/df.residual(mode). My question: Is there any rule of thumb of the cutpoiont value? The paper "On the Use of Corrections for Overdispersion" suggests overdispersion exists if the deviance is at least twice the number of degrees of freedom. Are there any further hints? Thanks. -- Ronggui

I apologize for my earlier posting that, unbeknownst to me before, apparently was not in the correct format for this list. Hopefully this attempt will go through, and no-one will hold the newbie mistake against me. I could really use some help in writing a new glm link function in order to run an analysis of daily nest survival rates. I've struggled with this for weeks now, and can at least

Following p.206 of "Statistical Models in S", I wish to change the code for summary.glm() so that it estimates the dispersion for binomial & poisson models when the parameter dispersion is set to zero. The following changes [insertion of ||dispersion==0 at one point; and !is.null(dispersion) at another] will do the trick: "summary.glm" <- function(object, dispersion =