similar to: : multinom()

Hi, I am having difficulty entering a 'programmable' argument into the multinom function from the nnet package. Interactively, I can get the function to work fine by calling it this way: z1=multinom(formula = class.ind(grp[-outgroup])~ (PC1 + PC2 + PC3), data=data.frame(scores)) However I need to be able to change the number of variables I am looking for in 'scores' and so am

Dear All: I am interested in multinomial logit models (function multinon, library nnet) but I'm having troubles in choose whether to define the predictors as factors or not. I had posted earlier this example (thanks for the reply ronggui): worms<- data.frame(year= rep(2000:2004, c(3,3,3,3,3)),age=rep(1:3,5),

Hello, I am using logistic discriminant analysis to check whether a known classification Yobs can be predicted by few continuous variables X. What I do is to predict class probabilities with multinom() in nnet(), obtaining a predicted classification Ypred and then compute the percentage P(obs) of objects classified the same in Yobs and Ypred. My problem now is to figure out whether P(obs) is

Is anyone aware of a way to check whether multinom has converged by checking a component of the output ? I'm not familar with nnet but, since multinom calls nnet , maybe there is an extra argument once can send to multinom to capture this information. Thanks.

I want to get the logLik to calculate McFadden.R2 ,ML.R2 and Cragg.Uhler.R2, but the value from multinom does not have logLik.So my quetion is : is logLik meaningful to multinomial logistic model from multinom?If it does, how can I get it? Thank you! ps: I konw VGAM has function to get the multinomial logistic model with logLik, but I prefer use the function from "official" R

Full_Name: Rob Foxall Version: 2.2.0 OS: Windows XP Submission from: (NULL) (149.155.96.5) I was using multinom from nnet package, when I did something stupid -- I entered in an incorrect factor variable as response. This factor had only one level. Instead of R telling me not to be so dumb, it crashed, clicking on debug coming up with the message "An exception 'Unhandled Win32

Hi, I found that using different contrasts (e.g. contr.helmert vs. contr.treatment) will generate different fitted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression using multinom(); while the fitted probabilities from binary logistic regression seem to be the same. Why is that? and for multinomial logisitc regression, what contrast should be used? I guess it's helmert? here is an example

Hi all, I'm working on a multinomial (or "polytomous") logistic regression using R and have made great progress using multinom() from the nnet library. My response variable has three categories, and there are two different possible predictors. I'd like to use the likelihoods of certain models (ie, saturated, fitteds, and null) to calculate Nagelkerke R-squared values for

Hi: I'm working with multinomial models with library nnet, and I'm trying to get the explained deviance (pseudo R^2) of my models. I am assuming that: pseudo R^2= 1 - dev(model) / dev (null) where dev(model) is the deviance for the fitted model and dev(null) is the deviance for the null model (with the intercept only). library(nnet) full.model<- multinom(cbind(factor1,

Hi, I am trying to specify a multinomial logit model using the multinom function from the nnet package. Now I add another independent variable and it halves the AIC as given by summary(multinom()). But when I call Anova(multinom()) from the car package, it tells me that this added variable is insignificant (Pr(>Chisq)=0.39). Thus, the improved AIC suggests to keep the variable but the Anova

Hi, Just wonder if someone could comment on using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) vs. multinomial logistic regression in multi-class classification/prediction (nomial dependent variable, not ordinal)? What kind of difference in results can I expect from the 2 methods, which is better or more appropriate, or under what condiditon should I used one instead of the other? And is there other

Best R Help, I like to estimate a Multinomial Logit Model with 10 Classes. The problem is that the number of observations differs a lot over the 10 classes: Class | num. Observations A | 373 B | 631 C | 171 D | 700 E | 87 F | 249 G | 138 H | 133 I | 162 J | 407 Total: 3051 Where my data looks like: x1 x2 x3 x4 Class 1 1,02 2 1 A 2 7,2 1 5 B 3 4,2 1 4 H 1 4,1 1 8 F 2 2,4 3 7 D 1 1,2 0 4 J 2 0,9

Running a binary logit model on the data df <- data.frame(y=sample(letters[1:3], 100, repl=T), x=rnorm(100)) reveals some residual deviance: summary(glm(y ~ ., data=df, family=binomial("logit"))) However, running a multinomial model on that data (multinom, nnet) reveals a residual deviance: summary(multinom(y ~ ., data=df)) On page 203, the MASS book says that "here the

Dear All. I have the following table that I want to analyze using multinom function freq segments sample 4271 Seg1 tumour 4311 Seg2 tumour 3515 Seg1 normal 3561 Seg2 normal I want to compare model with both factors to the one where only sample is present. model1=multinom(freq~segments+sample,data=table) model2=multinom(freq~ sample,data=table)

Hello folks, Let me first apologize: I'm not a professional nor a mathematician, just an ordinary guy, fooling around with the excellent R-package. I know the basic principles behind statistics, but haven't read anything more advanced than the ordinary first probability and statistics courses. Enough disclaimers? Good! I was examining the multinom-function (in the nnet-package) the other

Hi all, Has anyone tried to do k-fold cross validation for flexible discriminant analysis ( mda library), for example, using crossval() in bootstrap? The problem is that the function crossval() requires a separate matrix for predictors and another for responses, whereas the function fda(), using the formula argument only. Is there another way of doing k-fold cross validation for functions which

Good Day: When I used: multinom(formula = Y ~ X1 + X2 + X3 + X1:X2 + X1:X3 + X3:X2 + X1^2 + X2^2 + X3^2, data = DATASET), I get estimates and AIC for the model containing main effects and interactions only (no squared terms)...and FYI, all predictors are continuous. Is this "normal" behavior? If I run this in S-Plus I get estimates and AIC for the model containing all terms(including

Hi, Evgenia and I have copied an updated version of the mlbench package to CRAN which contains several new data sets. We have also changed some of the variable names to avoid name conflicts. Best, -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Friedrich Leisch Institut f?r Statistik Tel: (+43 1) 58801 10715 Technische

Hi, Evgenia and I have copied an updated version of the mlbench package to CRAN which contains several new data sets. We have also changed some of the variable names to avoid name conflicts. Best, -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Friedrich Leisch Institut f?r Statistik Tel: (+43 1) 58801 10715 Technische

I am hoping for some advice regarding resolving error messages I have received when trying to use the expand.grid command. library(nnet) library(MASS) library(car) mod.multacute <-multinom(kc$group ~ kc$in.acute.danger * kc$violent.convictions, na.rm=T) summary(mod.multacute, cor=F, Wald=T) Anova (mod.multacute) confint (mod.multacute) > predictors <- expand.grid(group=1:3,