similar to: convergence in polr

This is a follow-up question for PR#15052 <http://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=15052> There is another thing I would like to discuss wrt how nlminb() should proceed with NAs. The question is: What would be a successful way to deal with an evaluation point of the objective function where the gradient and the hessian are not well defined? If the gradient and the hessian both

Hello R-users, I am using polr function in library(MASS). The code I use is the following: polr(as.ordered(q23p)~.,data=as.data.frame(datapr2)) where datapr2 is a matrix of 63 columns (together with the dependent variable) and 1665 rows. But I am receiving the warning message Error in optim(start, fmin, gmin, method = "BFGS", hessian = Hess, ...) I would be very greatfull if anyone

Hi (1)In polr(), is there any way to calculate a pseudo analogue to the R^2. Just for use as a purely descriptive statistic of the goodness of fit? (2) And: what are the assumptions which must be fulfilled, so that the results of polr() (t-values, etc.) are valid? How can I test these prerequisites most easily: I have a three-level (ordered factor) response and four metric variables. many

I'm running polr() and getting warning messages from glm.fit(). It seems reasonable to use glm.control() to turn on the trace and follow what glm.fit() does when called by polr(); or is it? glm.control(maxit=10, trace=TRUE) polr(act~., data=mm) The glm.control() sets the trace TRUE, but there's no change in the output from polr(). Many thanks in advance for any help/pointers.

In polr.R the (several) functions gmin and fmin contain the code > theta <- beta[pc + 1L:q] > gamm <- c(-100, cumsum(c(theta[1L], exp(theta[-1L]))), 100) That's bad. There's no reason to suppose beta[pc+1L] is larger than -100 or that the cumulative sum is smaller than 100. For practical datasets those assumptions are frequently violated, causing the

Dear community, I am currently trying to fit an ordinal logistic regression model with the polr function. I often get the same error message : "attempt to find suitable starting values failed", for example with : require(MASS) data(iris) polr(Species~Sepal.Length+Sepal.Width+Petal.Length+Petal.Width,iris) (I know the response variable Species should be nominal but I do as levels

Hello I am running R 1.8.1 on a Windows platform I am attempting to fit an ordinal logistic regression model, using the polr function, as described in Venables and Ripley. But when I try model4 <- polr(ypsxcat~committed + as.factor(sex) + as.factor(drugusey) + anycsw + as.factor(sex)*committed + as.factor(sex)*as.factor(drugusey)+as.factor(sex)*anycsw, data = duhray) I get a message

Hi all, I have a problem to estimate Std. Error and t-value by ?polr? in library Mass. They result from the summary of a polr object. I can obtain them working in the R environment with the following statements: temp <- polr(formula = formula1, data = data1) coeff <- summary(temp), but when the above statements are enclosed in a function, summary reports the following error:

Hi, I'm getting an error message using polr(): Error in optim(start, fmin, gmin, method = "BFGS", hessian = Hess, ...) : initial value in 'vmmin' is not finite The outcome variable is ordinal and factored, and the independant variable is continuous. I've checked the source code for both polr() and optim() and can't find any variable called

Hi, I obtained all the coefficients that I need from polr. However, I'm wondering how I can obtain the standard error of each estimated coefficient? I saved the Hessian and do something like summary(polrObj), I don't see any standard error like when doing regression using lm. Any help would be really appreciated. Thank you! - adschai

Dear Sir, I get an error message when I use polr() in MASS package. My data is "ord.dat". I made "y" a factor. y y1 y2 x lx 1 0 0 0 3.2e-02 -1.49485 2 0 0 0 3.2e-02 -1.49485 3 0 0 0 1.0e-01 -1.00000 4 0 0 0 1.0e-01 -1.00000 5 0 0 0 3.2e-01 -0.49485 6 0 0 0 3.2e-01 -0.49485 7 1 1 0 1.0e+00 0.00000 8 0 0 0 1.0e+00 0.00000 9 1 1 0

Hi - I am using polr. I can get a result from polr fit by calling result.plr <- polr(formula, data=mydata, method="probit"); However, from the 'result.plr', how can I access standard error of the estimated coefficients as well as the t statistics for each one of them? What I would like to do ultimately is to see which coefficients are not significant and try to refit the

Dear all, I have used polr in MASS but I am uncertain about the summary(polr.object) interpretation and would be happy for help on that. This is my summary: > summary(shade.polr) Re-fitting to get Hessian Call: polr(formula = as.ordered(shade) ~ as.factor(objekt), data = sof, weights = as.numeric(frek)) Coefficients: Value Std. Error t value 2.1699520 0.3681840 5.8936612

I am new to R, ordered logistic regression, and polr. The "Examples" section at the bottom of the help page for polr<http://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-patched/library/MASS/html/polr.html>(that fits a logistic or probit regression model to an ordered factor response) shows options(contrasts = c("contr.treatment", "contr.poly")) house.plr <- polr(Sat ~ Infl +

Dear friends. Do Polr in Mass change the sign of the coefficients ? Example (McCullagh 1980) options(contrasts=c("contr.treatment","contr.poly")) library(Mass) freq <- c(19,29,24,497,560,269) yy <- ordered(gl(3,1,6)) z4 <- polr(yy~x,weights=freq) > z4 Call: polr(formula = yy ~ x, weights = freq) Coefficients: x2 -0.6026492 Intercepts: 1|2

Dear R experts: I am running some calculations using polr() in MASS library, and found some differences in results obtained on two different machines (IRIX 6.5, and Linux RH 7.1). It is not clear to me whether this is due to some error in my programming the calculation and how to resolve the differences, if possible. The polr() call is the following:

Dear all, I've replicated the cheese tasting example on p175 of GLM's by McCullagh and Nelder. This is a 4 treatment (rows) by 9 ordinal response (cols) table. Here's my simple code: #### cheese library(MASS) options(contrasts = c("contr.treatment", "contr.poly")) y = c(0,0, 1, 7, 8,8,19, 8,1, 6,9,12,11, 7,6, 1, 0,0, 1,1, 6, 8,23,7,

Hello, I am trying to run an ordinal logistic regression (polr) using the package 'MASS'. I have successfully run other regression classes (glm, multinom) without much problem, but with the 'polr' class I get the following error: " Error in svd(X) : infinite or missing values in 'x' " which appears when I run the "summary" command. The data file is

I'd like to thank John Fox and Chuck Cleland for their help in resovling this issue. It turned out to be something simple, but perhaps others have had similar problems In my original data frame, I had 4 categories of race/ethnicity. One of the categories (other) was very small, and not similar to any of the other three categories, so I created a new data frame deleting those people.

Hi, I'm trying to fit a ordered logistic regression. The response variable (y) has three levels (0,1,2). The command I've used is: /ordlog<-polr(y~x1+x2+x3+x4, data=finalbase, subset=heard, weight=wt, na.action=na.omit) / (There are no NA's in y but there are NA's in X's) The error I'm getting is: /Warning messages: 1: non-integer #successes in a binomial glm! in: