similar to: predict.glm and predict.gam output

I'm fitting a Poisson gam model, say model<-gam(a65tm~as.factor(day.week )+as.factor(week)+offset(log(pop65))+s(time,k=10,bs="cr",fx=FALSE,by=NA,m=1),sp=c( 0.001),data=dati1,family=poisson) Currently I've difficulties in obtaining right predictions by using gam.predict function with MGCV package in R version 2.2.1 (see below my syntax).

Sometimes, for specific models, I get this error from predict.gam in library mgcv: Error in complete.cases(object) : negative length vectors are not allowed Here's an example: model.calibrate <- gam(meansalesw ~ s(tscore,bs="cs",k=4), data=toplot, weights=weight, gam.method="perf.magic") > test <- predict(model.calibrate,newdata) Error in

Hello I'm using function gam from package mgcv to fit splines. ?When I try to make a prediction slightly beyond the original 'x' range, I get this error: > A = runif(50,1,149) > B = sqrt(A) + rnorm(50) > range(A) [1] 3.289136 145.342961 > > > fit1 = gam(B ~ s(A, bs="ps"), outer.ok=TRUE) > predict(fit1, newdata=data.frame(A=149.9), outer.ok=TRUE) Error

Hi everybody, I am using predict.gam() now. I but it seems there is no such option to get standard errors of the predicted values. I tried to set se=T or se.fit=T but no use. If you know anything about that please let me know. Thanks very much. Kevin. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

I've got a small problem. I have some observational data (environmental samples: abiotic explanatory variable and biological response) to which I've fitted both a multiple linear regression model and also a gam (mgcv) using smooths for each term. The gam clearly fits far better than the lm model based on AIC (difference in AIC ~ 8), in addition the adjusted R squared for the gam is

Hello everyone. I am doing a logistic gam (package mgcv) on a pretty large dataframe (130.000 cases with 100 variables). Because of that, the gam is fitted on a random subset of 10000. Now when I want to predict the values for the rest of the data, I get the following error: > gam.basis_alleakti.1.pr=predict(gam.basis_alleakti.1, +

This is in regards to the suggested use of type="lpmatrix" in the documentation for mgcv::predict.gam. Could one not get the same result more simply by using type="terms" and interpolating each term directly? What is the advantage of the lpmatrix approach for prediction outside R? Thanks. -- View this message in context:

Hello, Is it possible to estimate prediction interval using GAM? I looked through ?gam, ?predict.gam etc and the mgcv.pdf Simon Wood. I found it can calculate confidence interval but not clear if I can get it to calculate prediction interval. I read "Inference for GAMs is difficult and somewhat contentious." in Kuhnert and Venable An Introduction to R, and wondering why and if that

Qusetion #1 ********* Model selection in GAM can be done by using: 1. step.gam {gam} : A directional stepwise search 2. gam {mgcv} : Smoothness estimation using GCV or UBRE/AIC criterion Suppose my model starts with a additive model (linear part + spline part). Using gam() {mgcv} i got estimated degrees of freedom(edf) for the smoothing splines. Now I want to use the functional form of my model

Hello, I'd like to understand 'what' is predicting the response for library(mgcv) gam? For example: library(mgcv) fit <- gam(y~s(x),data=as.data.frame(l_yx),family=binomial) xx <- seq(min(l_yx[,2]),max(l_yx[,2]),len=101) plot(xx,predict(fit,data.frame(x=xx),type="response"),type="l") I want to see the generalized function(s) used to predict the response

Dear R-users: Im trying (using gam package) to develop a stepwise analysis. My gam object contains five pedictor variables (a,b,c,d,e,f). I define the step.gam: step.gam(gamobject, scope=list("a"= ~s(a,4), "b"= ~s(b,4), "c"= ~s(c,4), "d"= ~s(d,4), "e"= ~s(e,4), "f"= ~s(f,4))) However, the result shows a formula containing the whole

Dear all, I run the GAMs (generalized additive models) in gam(mgcv) using the following codes. m.gam <-gam(mark~s(x)+s(y)+s(lstday2004)+s(ndvi2004)+s(slope)+s(elevation)+disbinary,family=binomial(logit),data=point) And two repeated warnings appeared. Warnings$B!'(B 1: In gam.fit(G, family = G$family, control = control, gamma = gamma, ... : Algorithm did not converge 2: In gam.fit(G,

Hi, I need further help with my GAMs. Most models I test are very obviously non-linear. Yet, to be on the safe side, I report the significance of the smooth (default output of mgcv's summary.gam) and confirm it deviates significantly from linearity. I do the latter by fitting a second model where the same predictor is entered without the s(), and then use anova.gam to compare the

Dear all, I'm a fairly new R user having two questions regarding gam: 1. The prediction example on p. 38 in the mgcv manual. In order to get predictions based on the original data set, by leaving out the 'newdata' argument ("newd" in the example), I get an error message "Warning message: the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used in: if

I am fitting a two dimensional smoother in gam, say junk = gam(y~s(x1,x2)), to a response variable y that is always positive and pretty well behaved, both x1 and x2 are contained within [0,1]. I then create a new dataset for prediction with values of (x1,x2) within the range of the original data. predict(junk,newdata,type="response") My predicted values are a bit strange

In Dr. Wood's book on GAM, he suggests in section 4.1.6 that it might be useful to shrink a single smooth by adding S=S+epsilon*I to the penalty matrix S. The context was the need to be able to shrink the term to zero if appropriate. I'd like to do this in order to shrink the coefficients towards zero (irrespective of the penalty for "wiggliness") - but not necessarily all the

Dear all, I've now spent a couple of days trying to learn R and, in particular, the gam() function, and I now have a few questions and reflections regarding the latter. Maybe these things are implemented in some way that I'm not yet aware of or have perhaps been decided by the R community to not be what's wanted. Of course, my lack of complete theoretical understanding of what

Hi, I am fairly new to GAM and started using package mgcv. I like the fact that optimal smoothing is automatically used (i.e. df are not determined a priori but calculated by the gam procedure). But the mgcv manual warns that p-level for the smooth can be underestimated when df are estimated by the model. Most of the time my p-levels are so small that even doubling them would not result

Dear R users, I'm new to both R and to this list and would like to get advice on how to build generalized additive models in R. Based on the description of gam, which I found on the R website, I specified the following model: model1<-gam(ST~s(MOWST1),family=binomial,data=strikes.S), in which ST is my binary response variable and MOWST1 is a categorical independent variable. I get the

I stumbled across a mild glitch when trying to compare the result of gam() fitting with the result of lm() fitting. The following code demonstrates the problem: library(gam) x <- rep(1:10,10) set.seed(42) y <- rnorm(100) fit1 <- lm(y~x) fit2 <- gam(y~lo(x)) fit3 <- lm(y~factor(x)) print(anova(fit1,fit2)) # No worries. print(anova(fit1,fit3)) # Likewise. print(anova(fit2,fit3)) #