similar to: Generic plot function for GLM objects

Dear all, In R 2.7.1 on Windows it looks to me that the generic plot function for GLM objects uses standardized working residuals and not as labeled in the graph the standardized deviance residuals. It looks to me that from 2.7.0 to 2.7.1 there has been a bug introduced. Has anybody observed the same or do I misunderstand something in the generic plot function? Feedback is very much

>>>>> Ben Bolker >>>>> on Sun, 3 Jun 2018 17:33:18 -0400 writes: > Is it generally known/has it been previously discussed here that the > $aic() component in GLM-family objects (e.g. results of binomial(), > poisson(), etc.) does not as implemented actually return the AIC, but > rather -2*log-likelihood + 2*(model_has_scale_parameter)

FWIW p. 206 of the White Book gives the following for names(binomial()): family, names, link, inverse, deriv, initialize, variance, deviance, weight. So $aic wasn't there In The Beginning. I haven't done any more archaeology to try to figure out when/by whom it was first introduced ... Section 6.3.3, on extending families, doesn't give any other relevant info. A patch for

Full_Name: Henric Nilsson Version: 2.2.0 (2005-06-20 r34776) OS: Windows 2000 Submission from: (NULL) (213.115.23.26) The help page for `weighted.residuals' states that the function can be used with both `lm' and `glm' objects. However, it's unclear what's meant by the following passage "Weighted residuals are the usual residuals Ri, multiplied by wi^0.5, where wi are

Hi, I have a data set with 999 observations, for each of them I have data on four variables: site, colony, gender (quite a few NA values), and cohort. This is how the data set looks like: > str(dispersal) 'data.frame': 999 obs. of 4 variables: $ site : Factor w/ 2 levels "1","2": 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 ... $ gender: Factor w/ 2 levels "0","1":

I need to be able to run a generalized linear model with a log() link and a Weibull family, or something similar to deal with an extreme value distribution. I actually have a large dataset where this is apparently necessary. It has to do with recovery of forensic samples from surfaces, where as much powder as possible is collected. This apparently causes the results to conform to some type

Hi all Consider the family function, as used by glm. The help page says the value of the family object is a list, one element of which is the following: dev.resids function giving the deviance residuals as a function of (y, mu, wt). But reading any of the family functions (eg poisson) shows that dev.resids is a function that computes the *square* of the deviance residuals (at least, by

Dear all, I am new to R and my question may be trivial to you... I am doing a GLM with binomial errors to compare proportions of species in different categories of seed sizes (4 categories) between 2 sites. In the model summary the residual deviance is much higher than the degree of freedom (Residual deviance: 153.74 on 4 degrees of freedom) and even after correcting for overdispersion by

Hi all! I've got this error while running example(Glm) library("rms") > example(Glm) Glm> ## Dobson (1990) Page 93: Randomized Controlled Trial : Glm> counts <- c(18,17,15,20,10,20,25,13,12) Glm> outcome <- gl(3,1,9) Glm> treatment <- gl(3,3) Glm> f <- glm(counts ~ outcome + treatment, family=poisson()) Glm> f Call: glm(formula = counts ~

Dear R users; I am modelling densities of some species of birds, so I have a problem with a great ammount of zeros. I have decided to try GLMs with the tweedie family, but in all the models I have tried I got an NA for the AIC value. Just to check the problem I've compared the a glm using the Gaussian family with the identity link and a glm using the tweedie family with var.power=0 and

I have fitted a number of models with receipt of social assictance (toim1) during a year (values 0 or 1) with a number of covariates. The data include sampling weights which I use in the models. Using the exact same data, glm() under 1.0.1 and 1.1.0 give different results in many (but not all) of the models. I have re-installed 1.0.1 to check this and I found now mention in the NEWS file that

Hi, I had a logit regression, but don't really know how to handle the "Warning message: non-integer #successes in a binomial glm! in: eval(expr, envir, enclos)" problem. I had the same logit regression without weights and it worked out without the warning, but I figured it makes more sense to add the weights. The weights sum up to one. Could anyone give me some hint? Thanks a lot!

Hello, I am using the glm model with a poisson distribution. The model runs just fine but when I try to get the null deviance for the model of the null degrees of freedom I get the following errors: > null.deviance(pAmeir_1) Error: couldn't find function "null.deviance" > df.null(pAmeir_1) Error: couldn't find function "df.null" When I do: >

> Hello, > > I have a question about a discrepancy between the > reported F statistics using anova() and add1() from > adding an additional term to form nested models. > > I found and old posting related to anova() and > drop1() regarding a glm with a dispersion parameter. > > The posting is very old (May 2000, R 1.1.0). > The old posting is located here. >

Hi and sorry to distur, ########### Setting ################# I'm trying to use glm with factors: > Pyr.1.glm<-glm(Pyrale~Trait,DataRav,family=poisson) > summary(Pyr.1.glm) Call: glm(formula = Pyrale ~ Trait, family = poisson, data = DataRav) Deviance Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.7117 -0.8944 -0.6237 0.6390 1.5224 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)

Hi R user, I am a kind of an intermediate user of R. Now I am using GLM model (library MASS, VEGUS). I used a backward stepwise logistic regression, but i got a problem in removing those predictors which are above 0.05. I don't want to include those variables which were above 0.05 in final backward stepwise logetsic regression model. for example: first I run the model,

Dear R-users, I would like to show you a simple example that gives an overview of one of my current issue. Although my working setting implies a different parametric model (which cannot be framed in the glm), I guess that what I'll get from the following example it would help for the next steps. Anyway here it is. Firstly I simulated from a series of exposures, a series of deaths (given a

I've noticed that glm and lrm give extremely different results if you attempt to fit a saturated model to a dataset with zero cells. Consider, for instance the data from, Agresti's Death Penalty example [0]. The crosstab table is: , , PENALTY = NO VIC DEF BLACK WHITE BLACK 97 52 WHITE 9 132 , , PENALTY = YES VIC DEF BLACK WHITE BLACK 6 11

Here's a bug one of my students noticed. When you call plot() on a glm object, plot.lm gets called. The second plot it shows is supposed to give a normal QQ plot of the standard deviance residuals, but it doesn't. The glm object created by glm.fit returns something (the IRLS weights?) in fit$weights which plot.lm takes as observation weights, so you get strange residuals in the QQ

Hi all, In my continuous transition of GLIM to R I try to make a glm with binomial errors. The data file have 3 vectors: h -> the factor that is ajusted (have 3 levels) d -> number of animais alive (the response) n -> total number of animals To test proportion of alive, make d/n. In GLIM: $yvar d$ $error binomial n$ $fit +h$ scale deviance = 25.730 (change = -9.138) at cycle 4