similar to: Slight fault in error messages

Full_Name: Henric Nilsson Version: 2.3.0 Patched (2006-05-09 r38014) OS: Windows 2000 SP4 Submission from: (NULL) (83.253.9.137) When supplying an unavailable link to `quasibinomial', the error message looks strange. E.g. > quasibinomial("x") Error in quasibinomial("x") : 'x' link not available for quasibinomial family, available links are "logit",

this may be a better question for r-devel, but ... Is there a particular reason (and if so, what is it) that the inverse link is not in the list of allowable link functions for the binomial family? I initially thought this might have something to do with the properties of canonical vs non-canonical link functions, but since other link functions (probit, cloglog, cauchit, log) are allowed, I

Hello, The following code: > binomial(identity) Generates an error message: Error in binomial(identity) : link "identity" not available for binomial family; available links are ?logit?, ?probit?, ?cloglog?, ?cauchit?, ?log? While : > binomial("identity") Yields an identity-binomial object that works as expected with stats::glm The error in the first example mislead

What is the current state of the R-art for ordered probit models, and more esoterically is there any available R strategy for ordered cauchit models, i.e. ordered multinomial alternatives with a cauchy link function. MCMC is an option, obviously, but for a univariate latent variable model this seems to be overkill... standard mle methods should be preferable. (??) Googling reveals that spss

I am working with Probit regression (I cannot switch to logit) can anybody help me in finding out how to obtain with R Finney's fiducial confidence intervals for the levels of the predictor (Dose) needed to produce a proportion of 50% of responses(LD50, ED50 etc.)? If the Pearson chi-square goodness-of-fit test is significant (by default), a heterogeneity factor should be used to calculate

thanks a lot Renaud. but i was interested in Finney's fiducial confidence intervals of LD50 so to obtain comparable results with SPSS. But your reply leads me to the next question: does anybody know what is the best method (asymptotic, bootstrap etc.) for calculating confidence intervals of LD50? i could "get rid" of Finney's fiducial confidence intervals but

Hi, I would like apply different link functions from Aranda-Ordaz (1981) family to large binary dataset (n = 2000). The existing links in glm for binomial data (logit, probit, cloglog) are not adequate for my data, and I need to test some other transformations. Is it possible to do this in R? And how? Thank you for your help, /Sharon

Not real data. It was gererated randomly. The original codes are the following: par(mfrow=c(2,1)) n <- 500 ######################### #DATA GENERATING PROCESS# ######################### x1 <- rnorm(n,0,1) x2 <- rchisq(n,df=3,ncp=0)-3 sigma <- 1 u1 <- rnorm(n,0,sigma) ylatent1 <-x1+x2+u1 y1 <- (ylatent1 >=0) # create the binary indicator ####################### #THE

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)".

I'll address two issues. The first is today's error message and the other is change management for contributed packages on CRAN. TODAY'S ERROR MESSAGE I switched from the 0.995-1 versions of lme4 and Matrix to those referenced in the subject line this afternoon. Prior to using these packages on anything else, I applied them to code that 'worked' (provided numerical results

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

 Hello! > I have a very simple set of data and I would like to analyze > them with probit analysis. > The data are: X    Event    Trial > 1210  8        8 > 121  6        8 > 60.5  6        8 > I want to estimate the value of X that will give a 95% hit > rate (Event/Trial) and the corresponding 95% CI. > you can help me? Thanks!! > Trinh  [[alternative HTML version

hi, people How can we compare two probit models brought out from the same data? Let me use the example used in "An Introduction to R". "Consider a small, artificial example, from Silvey (1970). On the Aegean island of Kalythos the male inhabitants suffer from a congenital eye disease, the effects of which become more marked with increasing age. Samples of islander males

I am trying to figure out how to apply a loglog link to a binomial model (dichotomous response variable with far more zeros than ones). I am aware that there are several relevant posts on this list, but I am afraid I need a little more help. The two suggested approaches seem to be: 1) modify the make.link function in GLM, or 2) use the loglog or cloglog functions in the VGAM package.

I'm having trouble using binomial(link="cloglog") with GLMM in lme4, Version: 0.5-2, Date: 2004/03/11. The example in the Help file works fine, even simplified as follows: fm0 <- GLMM(immun~1, data=guImmun, family=binomial, random=~1|comm) However, for another application, I need binomial(link="cloglog"), and this generates an error for me: >

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

I would like to do an R glm() with family = binomial(link="loglog") Right now, the cloglog link exists, which is nice when the data have a heavy tail to the left. I have the opposite case and the loglog link is what I need. Can someone suggest how to add the loglog link onto glm()? It would be lovely to have it there by default, and it certainly makes sense to have the two opposite

I'm trying to use GLMM in library(lme4), R 1.9.0pat, updated just now. I get an error message I can't decipher: library(lme4) set.seed(1) n <- 10 N <- 1000 DF <- data.frame(yield=rbinom(n, N, .99)/N, nest=1:n) fit <- GLMM(yield~1, random=~1|nest, family=binomial, data=DF, weights=rep(N, n)) Error in eval(expr, envir, enclos) : ..1 used in an incorrect

R-devotees, I have a question about modeling in the case where the response variable is binary. I have a case where I have a response variable that is the probability of success, and four descriptor variables, The response has a sigmoid response with one of the variables. I would like to test for the effect of the various descriptor variables on the percentage success of the binary trait. I have

Hello, I have different results from these two softwares for a simple binomial GLM problem. >From Genmod in SAS: LogLikelihood=-4.75, coeff(intercept)=-3.59, coeff(x)=0.95 >From glm in R: LogLikelihood=-0.94, coeff(intercept)=-3.99, coeff(x)=1.36 Is there anyone tell me what I did wrong? Here are the code and results, 1) SAS Genmod: % r: # of failure % k: size of a risk set data