similar to: Question on glm.nb vs zeroinfl vs hurdle models

Hello, I have a data frame with 1425 observations, 539 of which are zeros. I am trying to fit the following ZINB: f3<-formula(Nbr_Abs~ Zone * Year + Source) ZINB2<-zeroinfl(f3, dist="negbin", link= "logit", data=TheData, offset=log(trans.area), trace=TRUE) Zone is a factor with 4 levels, Year a factor with 27 levels, and Source a factor with 3 levels. Nbr_Abs is counts

Dear all, A question related to the following has been asked on R-help before, but I could not find any answer to it. Input will be much appreciated. I got an unexpected sign of the "slope" parameter associated with a covariate (diam) using zeroinfl(). It led me to compare the estimates given by zeroinfl() and hurdle(): The (significant) negative estimate here is surprising, given

Dear R-Helpers, Can anyone please help me to interpret warning messages from zeroinfl (package pscl) while fitting a zero inflated negative binomial model? The console reports convergence and the parameters seam reasonable, but these <<Warning messages: 1: algorithm did not converge in: glm.fit(X, Y, family = poisson()) 2: fitted rates numerically 0 occurred in: glm.fit(X, Y, family =

Dear list, I'm wondering if anyone can help me calculate the deviance of either a zeroinfl or hurdle model from package pscl? Even if someone could point me to the correct formula for calculating the deviance, I could do the rest on my own. I am trying to calculate a pseudo-R-squared measure based on the R^{2}_{DEV} of [1], so I need to be able to calculate the deviance of the full and null

Hi, I am wondering if there is an easy way to access the hat matrix for zeroinfl and hurdle objects in the pscl library? Thanks, Chris [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, I am a little confused at the output from predict() for a zeroinfl object. Here's my confusion: ## From zeroinfl package fm_zinb2 <- zeroinfl(art ~ . | ., data = bioChemists, dist = "negbin") ## The raw zero-inflated overdispersed data > table(bioChemists$art) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 16 19 275 246 178 84 67 27 17 12 1 2 1 1

Hi all, First post for me here, but I have been reading on the forum for almost two years now. Thanks to everyone who contributed btw! I have a dataset of 4000 observations of count of a mammal and I am trying to predict abundance from a inflated-zero model as there is quite a bit of zeros in the response variable. I have tried multiple options, but I might do something wrong as every

Dear R crew: I am sorry this question has been posted before, but I can't seem to solve this problem yet. I have a simple dataset consisting of two variables: cestode intensity and chick size (defined as CAPI). Intensity is a count and clearly overdispersed, with way too many zeroes. I'm interested in looking at the association between these two variables, i.e. how well does chick

Dear R crew: I think I am in the right mailing list. I have a very simple dataset consisting of two variables: cestode intensity and chick size (defined as CAPI). Intensity is clearly overdispersed, with way too many zeroes. I'm interested in looking at the association between these two variables, i.e. how well does chick size predict tape intensity? I fit a zero inflated negat. binomial

I ran a negative binomial logit hurdle model and am now trying to plot the effects of a continuous predictor variable (the only variable in my model) on the count and zero component and the overall mean response. I'm confused because for some values, the predicted overall mean is higher than the mean of the non-zero counts (range of predicted overall means=2.2-11.0; range of non-zero count

Hello, I'm using pscl to run a hurdle model. Everything works great until I get to the point of making predictions. All of my "count" predictions are lower than my actual data, and lower than the "response" predictions, similar to the issue described here ( https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2012-August/320426.html) and here (

Hi, I am new to R and has been depending mostly on the online tutotials to learn R. I have to deal with zero inflated negative binomial distribution. I am however unable to understand the following example from this link http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/r/dae/zinbreg.htm The result gives two blocks. *library(pscl) zinb<-zeroinfl(count ~ child + camper | persons, dist = "negbin", EM =

Simplify your model. Does your TandemRepeat have a lot of levels? Or is your sample size very small? Alain Dear all, I am fitting a hurdle model in the following way: HNB <- hurdle(chro ~ as.factor(TandemRepeat)| as.factor(TandemRepeat), data =data_negbin_fin, dist = "negbin") But the std. error for log(theta) = NA Count model coefficients (truncated negbin with log link):

Dear list, I am using the hurdle model for modelling the habitat of rare fish species. However I do get an error message when I try to model my data: > test_new1<-hurdle(GALUMEL~ depth + sal + slope + vrm + lat:long + offset(log(haul_numb)), dist = "negbin", data = datafit_elasmo) Error in hurdle(GALUMEL ~ depth + sal + slope + vrm + lat:long + offset(log(haul_numb)), :

Hi all, I am running the following model: > glm89.nb <- glm.nb(AvGUD ~ Year*Trt*Micro) where Year has 3 levels, Trt has 2 levels and Micro has 3 levels. However when I run it has a zero inflated negative binomial (as I have lots of zeros) I get the below error message: > Zinb <- zeroinfl(AvGUD ~ Year*Trt*Micro |1, data = AvGUD89, dist = "negbin") Error in optim(fn =

Dear all, I am modeling the incidence of recreational anglers along a stretch of coastline, and with a vary large proportion of zeros (>80%) have chosen to use a zero inflated negative binomial (ZINB) distribution. I am using the same variables for both parts of the model, can anyone help me with R code to compute overall marginal effects of each variable? My model is specified as follows:

Dear R-helpers, running a zeroinflated model of the following type: zinb = zeroinfl(count=response ~., x = ~ . - response, z = ~. - response, dist = "negbin", data = t.data, trace = TRUE) generates the following message: Zero-Inflated Count Model Using logit to model zero vs non-zero Using Negative Binomial for counts dependent variable y: Y 0 1 2 3 359 52 7 3 generating

Hello, I am working with zero inflated models for a current project and I am getting wildly different results from R's zeroinfl(y ~ x, dist="negbin") command and Stata's zinb command. Does anyone know why this may be? I find it odd considering that zeroinfl(y ~ x, dist="poisson") gives identical to output to Stata's zip function. Thanks, --david [[alternative

Hello all, I am using the hurdle model for fitting my count data using the pscl package which is working fine. However, I am stuck with the problem of calculating the percent correctly predicted (PCP) zeros for hurdle model. The method I am trying to use to achieve this is 'hitmiss' in the pscl package (ref: http://www.inside-r.org/packages/cran/pscl/docs/hitmiss). When I do: >

Dear All, I am using the function vuong from pscl package to compare 2 non nested models NB1 (negative binomial I ) and Zero-inflated model. NB1 <-  glm(, , family = quasipoisson), it is an object of class: "glm" "lm" zinb <- zeroinfl( dist = "negbin") is an object of class: "zeroinfl"   when applying vuong function I get the following: vuong(NB1,