similar to: AIC in glm()

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,

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 *

Hi, I need to fit models and use AIC method to campare the best fitted model manually. When i extract AIC by using extractAIC, it gave me the df and AIC values. Now the problem is, how can I compare the AIC values from two models? is there anyway to extract AIC with no df so that I can compare directly? Thank you! > extractAIC(coxout) [1] 1.000 1723.038 [[alternative HTML version

Hello- I understand that log-likelihoods are bound to differ by constants, but if i estimate AIC for a set of simple nested linear models using the following 4 methods, shouldn't at least two of them produce the same ordering of models? in R: extractAIC AIC in S-PLUS: AIC n*log(deviance(mymodel)/n) + 2*p I find it troubling that these methods all give me different answers as to the best

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, I am using 'R' version 2.2.1 and 'S-PLUS' version 6.0; and I loaded the MASS library in 'S-PLUS'. I am running a logistic regression using glm: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > mydata.glm<-glm(COMU~MeanPycUpT+MeanPycUpS, family=binomial, data=mydata)

--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

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,

Hi all, I'm fitting GLM's using the step or stepAIC procedures and I would like to save the AIC of the intermediate models. I would appreciate very much information about how todo this. Best wishes Germ??n L??pez

hello, could somebody refer me to the reason R uses -2*loglik + 2*(#param)+2 to calculate AIC? thank you -- Stoyan Iliev

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]

Hello All; I need to run a multiple regression analysis and use Akaike's Information Criterion for model selection. I understand that this command will give the AIC value for specified models: AIC(object, ..., k = 2) with "..." meaning any other optional models for which I would like AIC values. But, how can I specify (in the place of "...") that I want R to

Dear listers, Here we have a strange result we can hardly cope with. We want to compare a null mixed model with a mixed model with one independent variable. > lmmedt1<-lme(mediane~1, random=~1|site, na.action=na.omit, data=bdd2) > lmmedt9<-lme(mediane~log(0.0001+transat), random=~1|site, na.action=na.omit, data=bdd2) Using the Akaike Criterion and selMod of the package pgirmess

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

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

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]]

I recently got a request to add head() and tail() methods for Surv objects, which is quite reasonable, but not unlike other requests for logLik,? vcov, extractAIC, ...?? What they all have in common is that are methods added since creation of the survival package, and that I didn't know they existed. To try and get ahead of the curve, is there a way to list names of all of the default

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

Dear help community, I'm a R-beginner and use it for my master thesis. I've got a mixed model and want to analyse it with lme. There are a lot Cofactors that coult be relevant. To extract the important ones I want to do the stepAIC, but always get an error warning. Structure of my data: data.frame': 72 obs. of 54 variables: $ Block : Factor w/ 3 levels

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