# vcov and survival

13 messages
Open this post in threaded view
|

## vcov and survival

 I have just noticed a difference in behavior between coxph and lm/glm: if one or more of the coefficients from the fit in NA, then lm and glm omit that row/column from the variance matrix; while coxph retains it but sets the values to zero.    Is this something that should be "fixed", i.e., made to agree? I suspect that doing so will break other packages, but then NA coefs are rather rare so perhaps not. Terry Therneau ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: vcov and survival

 Dear Terry, Even the behaviour of lm() and glm() isn't entirely consistent. In both cases, singularity results in NA coefficients by default, and these are reported in the model summary and coefficient vector, but not in the coefficient covariance matrix: ---------------- > mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population), +              data=longley) > summary(mod.lm) Call: lm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     data = longley) Residuals:      Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max -0.80899 -0.33282 -0.02329  0.25895  1.08800 Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)                     Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)     (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 *** GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 *** Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *   I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA     --- Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1 Residual standard error: 0.5459 on 13 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared:  0.9791, Adjusted R-squared:  0.9758 F-statistic: 303.9 on 2 and 13 DF,  p-value: 1.221e-11 > vcov(mod.lm)             (Intercept)           GNP Population (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381 GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054 Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456 > coef(mod.lm)         (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP + Population)         88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292                  NA > > mod.glm <- glm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population), +               data=longley) > summary(mod.glm) Call: glm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     data = longley) Deviance Residuals:      Min        1Q    Median        3Q       Max   -0.80899  -0.33282  -0.02329   0.25895   1.08800   Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)                     Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)     (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 *** GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 *** Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *   I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA     --- Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1 (Dispersion parameter for gaussian family taken to be 0.2980278)     Null deviance: 185.0088  on 15  degrees of freedom Residual deviance:   3.8744  on 13  degrees of freedom AIC: 30.715 Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 2 > coef(mod.glm)         (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP + Population)         88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292                  NA > vcov(mod.glm)             (Intercept)           GNP Population (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381 GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054 Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456 ---------------- Moreoever, lm() has a singular.ok() argument that defaults to TRUE, but glm() doesn't have this argument: ---------------- > mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population), +              data=longley, singular.ok=FALSE) Error in lm.fit(x, y, offset = offset, singular.ok = singular.ok, ...) :   singular fit encountered ---------------- In my opinion, singularity should at least produce a warning, both in calls to lm() and glm(), and in summary() output. Even better, again in my opinion, would be to produce an error by default in this situation, but doing so would likely break too much existing code. I prefer NA to 0 for the redundant coefficients because it at least suggests that the decision about what to exclude is arbitrary, and of course simply excluding coefficients isn't the only way to proceed. Finally, the differences in behaviour between coef() and vcov() and between lm() and glm() aren't really sensible. Maybe there's some reason for all this that escapes me. Best,  John -------------------------------------- John Fox, Professor Emeritus McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Web: socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox > -----Original Message----- > From: R-devel [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of > Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:19 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: [Rd] vcov and survival > > I have just noticed a difference in behavior between coxph and lm/glm: > if one or more of the coefficients from the fit in NA, then lm and glm > omit that row/column from the variance matrix; while coxph retains it > but sets the values to zero. > >    Is this something that should be "fixed", i.e., made to agree? I > suspect that doing so will break other packages, but then NA coefs are > rather rare so perhaps not. > > Terry Therneau > > ______________________________________________ > [hidden email] mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: vcov and survival

 >>>>> Fox, John <[hidden email]> >>>>>     on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:45:07 +0000 writes:     > Dear Terry,     > Even the behaviour of lm() and glm() isn't entirely consistent. In both cases, singularity results in NA coefficients by default, and these are reported in the model summary and coefficient vector, but not in the coefficient covariance matrix:     > ----------------     >> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     > +              data=longley)     >> summary(mod.lm)     > Call:     > lm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     > data = longley)     > Residuals:     > Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max     > -0.80899 -0.33282 -0.02329  0.25895  1.08800     > Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)     > Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)         > (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 ***     > GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 ***     > Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *       > I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA         > ---     > Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1     > Residual standard error: 0.5459 on 13 degrees of freedom     > Multiple R-squared:  0.9791, Adjusted R-squared:  0.9758     > F-statistic: 303.9 on 2 and 13 DF,  p-value: 1.221e-11     >> vcov(mod.lm)     > (Intercept)           GNP Population     > (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381     > GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054     > Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456     >> coef(mod.lm)     > (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP + Population)     > 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292                  NA     >>     >> mod.glm <- glm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     > +               data=longley)     >> summary(mod.glm)     > Call:     > glm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     > data = longley)     > Deviance Residuals:     > Min        1Q    Median        3Q       Max       > -0.80899  -0.33282  -0.02329   0.25895   1.08800       > Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)     > Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)         > (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 ***     > GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 ***     > Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *       > I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA         > ---     > Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1     > (Dispersion parameter for gaussian family taken to be 0.2980278)     > Null deviance: 185.0088  on 15  degrees of freedom     > Residual deviance:   3.8744  on 13  degrees of freedom     > AIC: 30.715     > Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 2     >> coef(mod.glm)     > (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP + Population)     > 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292                  NA     >> vcov(mod.glm)     > (Intercept)           GNP Population     > (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381     > GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054     > Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456     > ----------------     > Moreoever, lm() has a singular.ok() argument that defaults to TRUE, but glm() doesn't have this argument:     > ----------------     >> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     > +              data=longley, singular.ok=FALSE)     > Error in lm.fit(x, y, offset = offset, singular.ok = singular.ok, ...) :     > singular fit encountered     > ----------------     > In my opinion, singularity should at least produce a warning, both in calls to lm() and glm(), and in summary() output. Even better, again in my opinion, would be to produce an error by default in this situation, but doing so would likely break too much existing code. Yes, I would not want to change.  Note that this is from S already, i.e., long "ingrained".  I think there one argument was that there are situations with factor predictors of many levels and conceptually their 2- or even 3-way interactions (!) where it is neat to just fit the model, (-> get residuals and fitted values) and also see implicitly the "necessary rank" of prediction space, or rather even more specifically, you see for every factor how many levels are "distinguishable"/useful for prediction, given the data.     > I prefer NA to 0 for the redundant coefficients because it at least suggests that the decision about what to exclude is arbitrary, and of course simply excluding coefficients isn't the only way to proceed. I'm less modest and would say *definitely*, NA's are highly prefered in such a situation.     > Finally, the differences in behaviour between coef() and vcov() and between lm() and glm() aren't really sensible. I really haven't seen any difference between lm() and glm() in the example above.  Maybe you can point them out for me. I do quite agree that  vcov() should be compatible with coef() [and summary()]  for both 'lm' and 'glm' methods, i.e., should get NA rows and columns there.  This would require eliminating these before e.g. using it in solve(, *) etc, but I think it would be a good idea that the useR must deal with these NAs actively. Shall "we" try and see the fallout in CRAN space?     > Maybe there's some reason for all this that escapes me. (for the first one---"no error"--- I gave a reason)     > Best,     > John     > --------------------------------------     > John Fox, Professor Emeritus     > McMaster University     > Hamilton, Ontario, Canada     > Web: socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox     >> -----Original Message-----     >> From: R-devel [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of     >> Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.     >> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:19 PM     >> To: [hidden email]     >> Subject: [Rd] vcov and survival     >>     >> I have just noticed a difference in behavior between coxph and lm/glm:     >> if one or more of the coefficients from the fit in NA, then lm and glm     >> omit that row/column from the variance matrix; while coxph retains it     >> but sets the values to zero.     >>     >> Is this something that should be "fixed", i.e., made to agree? I     >> suspect that doing so will break other packages, but then NA coefs are     >> rather rare so perhaps not.     >>     >> Terry Therneau     >>     >> ______________________________________________     >> [hidden email] mailing list     >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel    > ______________________________________________     > [hidden email] mailing list     > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: vcov and survival

 >>>>> Martin Maechler <[hidden email]> >>>>>     on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:13:02 +0200 writes: >>>>> Fox, John <[hidden email]> >>>>>     on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:45:07 +0000 writes:     >> Dear Terry,     >> Even the behaviour of lm() and glm() isn't entirely consistent. In both cases, singularity results in NA coefficients by default, and these are reported in the model summary and coefficient vector, but not in the coefficient covariance matrix:     >> ----------------     >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     >> +              data=longley)     >>> summary(mod.lm)     >> Call:     >> lm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     >> data = longley)     >> Residuals:     >> Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max     >> -0.80899 -0.33282 -0.02329  0.25895  1.08800     >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)     >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)         >> (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 ***     >> GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 ***     >> Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *       >> I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA         >> ---     >> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1     >> Residual standard error: 0.5459 on 13 degrees of freedom     >> Multiple R-squared:  0.9791, Adjusted R-squared:  0.9758     >> F-statistic: 303.9 on 2 and 13 DF,  p-value: 1.221e-11     >>> vcov(mod.lm)     >> (Intercept)           GNP Population     >> (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381     >> GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054     >> Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456     >>> coef(mod.lm)     >> (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP + Population)     >> 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292                  NA     >>>     >>> mod.glm <- glm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     >> +               data=longley)     >>> summary(mod.glm)     >> Call:     >> glm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     >> data = longley)     >> Deviance Residuals:     >> Min        1Q    Median        3Q       Max       >> -0.80899  -0.33282  -0.02329   0.25895   1.08800       >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)     >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)         >> (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 ***     >> GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 ***     >> Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 *       >> I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA         >> ---     >> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1     >> (Dispersion parameter for gaussian family taken to be 0.2980278)     >> Null deviance: 185.0088  on 15  degrees of freedom     >> Residual deviance:   3.8744  on 13  degrees of freedom     >> AIC: 30.715     >> Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 2     >>> coef(mod.glm)     >> (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP + Population)     >> 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292                  NA     >>> vcov(mod.glm)     >> (Intercept)           GNP Population     >> (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381     >> GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054     >> Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456     >> ----------------     >> Moreoever, lm() has a singular.ok() argument that defaults to TRUE, but glm() doesn't have this argument:     >> ----------------     >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population),     >> +              data=longley, singular.ok=FALSE)     >> Error in lm.fit(x, y, offset = offset, singular.ok = singular.ok, ...) :     >> singular fit encountered     >> ----------------     >> In my opinion, singularity should at least produce a warning, both in calls to lm() and glm(), and in summary() output. Even better, again in my opinion, would be to produce an error by default in this situation, but doing so would likely break too much existing code.     > Yes, I would not want to change.  Note that this is from S     > already, i.e., long "ingrained".  I think there one argument was     > that there are situations with factor predictors of many levels     > and conceptually their 2- or even 3-way interactions (!)     > where it is neat to just fit the model, (-> get residuals and     > fitted values) and also see implicitly the "necessary rank" of     > prediction space, or rather even more specifically, you see for     > every factor how many levels are "distinguishable"/useful for     > prediction, given the data.     >> I prefer NA to 0 for the redundant coefficients because it at least suggests that the decision about what to exclude is arbitrary, and of course simply excluding coefficients isn't the only way to proceed.     > I'm less modest and would say *definitely*, NA's are highly     > prefered in such a situation.     >> Finally, the differences in behaviour between coef() and vcov() and between lm() and glm() aren't really sensible.     > I really haven't seen any difference between lm() and glm() in     > the example above.  Maybe you can point them out for me. .. now I saw it:    lm() has  a 'singular.ok = TRUE' argument    which you can set to FALSE if you prefer an error to NA coefficients. I also agree with you John that it would be nice if  glm() also got such an argument. Patches are welcome and seem easy. Nowadays we prefer them as attachments (diff/patch file!) at R's   https://bugs.r-project.org bugzilla against the svn source, here   https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/R/glm.Rand   https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/man/glm.Rd    > I do quite agree that  vcov() should be compatible with     > coef() [and summary()]  for both 'lm' and 'glm' methods, i.e.,     > should get NA rows and columns there.  This would require     > eliminating these before e.g. using it in solve(, *) etc,     > but I think it would be a good idea that the useR must deal with     > these NAs actively.     > Shall "we" try and see the fallout in CRAN space?     >> Maybe there's some reason for all this that escapes me.     > (for the first one---"no error"--- I gave a reason)     >> Best,     >> John     >> --------------------------------------     >> John Fox, Professor Emeritus     >> McMaster University     >> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada     >> Web: socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox     >>> -----Original Message-----     >>> From: R-devel [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of     >>> Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.     >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:19 PM     >>> To: [hidden email]     >>> Subject: [Rd] vcov and survival     >>>     >>> I have just noticed a difference in behavior between coxph and lm/glm:     >>> if one or more of the coefficients from the fit in NA, then lm and glm     >>> omit that row/column from the variance matrix; while coxph retains it     >>> but sets the values to zero.     >>>     >>> Is this something that should be "fixed", i.e., made to agree? I     >>> suspect that doing so will break other packages, but then NA coefs are     >>> rather rare so perhaps not.     >>>     >>> Terry Therneau ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: vcov and survival

 Thanks all for your comments.  No one said "all the other vcov methods do ....", so I took some time this AM to look at several listed in the vcov help page. Here is the code for the first few examples: data2 is constructed specifically to create an NA coef midway in the list. data1 <- data.frame(y = c(1,2,10,50, 5, 4, 8, 40, 60, 20, 21, 22,                            3,5,12,52, 7, 8,16, 48, 58, 28, 20,5),                      x1 = factor(letters[rep(1:3, length=24)]),                      x2 = factor(LETTERS[rep(1:4, length=24)]),                      x3 = factor(rep(1:7, length=24))) data2 <- subset(data1, x1 !='a' | x2 != 'C') fit1 <- lm(y ~ x1*x2, data2) table(is.na(coef(fit1))) dim(vcov(fit1)) fit2 <- glm(y ~ x1*x2, data=data2, poisson) table(is.na(coef(fit2))) dim(vcov(fit2)) fit3 <- lme(y ~ x1*x2, random= ~1|x3, data2) 1. lm, mlm, glm, negbin objects all have an NA in coef(fit); and remove NA columns from the vcov object. 2. I expected polr to return a generalized inverse of the Hessian since vcov.polr has a call to ginv(object\$Hessian), but it shortcuts earlier with a message   "design appears to be rank-deficient, so dropping some coefs" The undetermined coef appears in neither coef() more vcov(). 3. rlm declares that it does not work with singular data. 4. multinom returns values for all coefficients and a full variance matrix.  However, the returned variance is rank-deficient.  It is essentially a g-inverse of the Hessian. 5. coxph and survreg report an NA coef, and return a generalized inverse of the Hessian matrix.  The g-inverse was chosen to be a particularly easy one in that you can spot redundant colums via a row/col of zeros. 6. nlme fails with a singularity error.  I didn't check out gls. So my original question of whether I should make coxph consistent with the others has no answer, the 'others' are not consistent. In response to two other points:   >> In my opinion singularity should at least produce a warning... I was one of those who lobbied heavily to change the singular.ok=FALSE default of lm to TRUE.  Data is messy, I have work to do, and don't need a package constantly harping at me. In the same vein, stuffing NA into the vcov result is more pure, but would cause a lot of hassle.  I'm not sure that it is worth it. For now, coxph will stay as is. But again, thanks to all for comments and I'll look forward to any more discussion. Terry T. On 09/14/2017 03:23 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: >>>>>> Martin Maechler <[hidden email]> >>>>>>      on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:13:02 +0200 writes: > >>>>>> Fox, John <[hidden email]> >>>>>>      on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:45:07 +0000 writes: > >      >> Dear Terry, >      >> Even the behaviour of lm() and glm() isn't entirely consistent. In both cases, singularity results in NA coefficients by default, and these are reported in the model summary and coefficient vector, but not in the coefficient covariance matrix: > >      >> ---------------- > >      >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population), >      >> +              data=longley) >      >>> summary(mod.lm) > >      >> Call: >      >> lm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population), >      >> data = longley) > >      >> Residuals: >      >> Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max >      >> -0.80899 -0.33282 -0.02329  0.25895  1.08800 > >      >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities) >      >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) >      >> (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 *** >      >> GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 *** >      >> Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 * >      >> I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA >      >> --- >      >> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1 > >      >> Residual standard error: 0.5459 on 13 degrees of freedom >      >> Multiple R-squared:  0.9791, Adjusted R-squared:  0.9758 >      >> F-statistic: 303.9 on 2 and 13 DF,  p-value: 1.221e-11 > >      >>> vcov(mod.lm) >      >> (Intercept)           GNP Population >      >> (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381 >      >> GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054 >      >> Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456 >      >>> coef(mod.lm) >      >> (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP + Population) >      >> 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292                  NA >      >>> >      >>> mod.glm <- glm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population), >      >> +               data=longley) >      >>> summary(mod.glm) > >      >> Call: >      >> glm(formula = Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population), >      >> data = longley) > >      >> Deviance Residuals: >      >> Min        1Q    Median        3Q       Max >      >> -0.80899  -0.33282  -0.02329   0.25895   1.08800 > >      >> Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities) >      >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) >      >> (Intercept)         88.93880   13.78503   6.452 2.16e-05 *** >      >> GNP                  0.06317    0.01065   5.933 4.96e-05 *** >      >> Population          -0.40974    0.15214  -2.693   0.0184 * >      >> I(GNP + Population)       NA         NA      NA       NA >      >> --- >      >> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1 > >      >> (Dispersion parameter for gaussian family taken to be 0.2980278) > >      >> Null deviance: 185.0088  on 15  degrees of freedom >      >> Residual deviance:   3.8744  on 13  degrees of freedom >      >> AIC: 30.715 > >      >> Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 2 > >      >>> coef(mod.glm) >      >> (Intercept)                 GNP          Population I(GNP + Population) >      >> 88.93879831          0.06317244         -0.40974292                  NA >      >>> vcov(mod.glm) >      >> (Intercept)           GNP Population >      >> (Intercept) 190.0269691  0.1445617813 -2.0954381 >      >> GNP           0.1445618  0.0001133631 -0.0016054 >      >> Population   -2.0954381 -0.0016053999  0.0231456 > >      >> ---------------- > >      >> Moreoever, lm() has a singular.ok() argument that defaults to TRUE, but glm() doesn't have this argument: > >      >> ---------------- > >      >>> mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population), >      >> +              data=longley, singular.ok=FALSE) >      >> Error in lm.fit(x, y, offset = offset, singular.ok = singular.ok, ...) : >      >> singular fit encountered > >      >> ---------------- > >      >> In my opinion, singularity should at least produce a warning, both in calls to lm() and glm(), and in summary() output. Even better, again in my opinion, would be to produce an error by default in this situation, but doing so would likely break too much existing code. > >      > Yes, I would not want to change.  Note that this is from S >      > already, i.e., long "ingrained".  I think there one argument was >      > that there are situations with factor predictors of many levels >      > and conceptually their 2- or even 3-way interactions (!) >      > where it is neat to just fit the model, (-> get residuals and >      > fitted values) and also see implicitly the "necessary rank" of >      > prediction space, or rather even more specifically, you see for >      > every factor how many levels are "distinguishable"/useful for >      > prediction, given the data. > >      >> I prefer NA to 0 for the redundant coefficients because it at least suggests that the decision about what to exclude is arbitrary, and of course simply excluding coefficients isn't the only way to proceed. > >      > I'm less modest and would say *definitely*, NA's are highly >      > prefered in such a situation. > >      >> Finally, the differences in behaviour between coef() and vcov() and between lm() and glm() aren't really sensible. > >      > I really haven't seen any difference between lm() and glm() in >      > the example above.  Maybe you can point them out for me. > > .. now I saw it: >     lm() has  a 'singular.ok = TRUE' argument >     which you can set to FALSE if you prefer an error to NA coefficients. > > I also agree with you John that it would be nice if  glm() also > got such an argument. > Patches are welcome and seem easy. Nowadays we prefer them > as attachments (diff/patch file!) at R's >    https://bugs.r-project.org bugzilla > against the svn source, here >    https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/R/glm.R> and >    https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/man/glm.Rd> >      > I do quite agree that  vcov() should be compatible with >      > coef() [and summary()]  for both 'lm' and 'glm' methods, i.e., >      > should get NA rows and columns there.  This would require >      > eliminating these before e.g. using it in solve(, *) etc, >      > but I think it would be a good idea that the useR must deal with >      > these NAs actively. > >      > Shall "we" try and see the fallout in CRAN space? > >      >> Maybe there's some reason for all this that escapes me. >      > (for the first one---"no error"--- I gave a reason) > >      >> Best, >      >> John > >      >> -------------------------------------- >      >> John Fox, Professor Emeritus >      >> McMaster University >      >> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada >      >> Web: socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox > > > > >      >>> -----Original Message----- >      >>> From: R-devel [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of >      >>> Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. >      >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:19 PM >      >>> To: [hidden email] >      >>> Subject: [Rd] vcov and survival >      >>> >      >>> I have just noticed a difference in behavior between coxph and lm/glm: >      >>> if one or more of the coefficients from the fit in NA, then lm and glm >      >>> omit that row/column from the variance matrix; while coxph retains it >      >>> but sets the values to zero. >      >>> >      >>> Is this something that should be "fixed", i.e., made to agree? I >      >>> suspect that doing so will break other packages, but then NA coefs are >      >>> rather rare so perhaps not. >      >>> >      >>> Terry Therneau > ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: vcov and survival

Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: vcov and survival

Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: vcov and survival

 In reply to this post by Fox, John On 09/14/2017 08:46 AM, Fox, John wrote: > Dear Martin, > > I made three points which likely got lost because of the way I presented them: > > (1) Singularity is an unusual situation and should be made more prominent. It typically reflects a problem with the data or the specification of the model. That's not to say that it*never*  makes sense to allow singular fits (as in the situations you mentions). In my medical work singularity is far from unusual.  It often results from imbalance in a covariate, e.g., there are 4 pathological stages but one of them turns out to be rare. > > I'd favour setting singular.ok=FALSE as the default, but in the absence of that a warning or at least a note. A compromise would be to have a singular.ok option() that would be FALSE out of the box. Originally the lm() default was singular.ok=FALSE.  It was a major pain in the ass and there was widespread unhappiness.  Enough so that Splus changed it.  (And they were not always very responsive to the users, so it took a lot of unrest.)   Another early default was na.fail, based on similar logic that "missings are unusual and should require an explicit response".  Don't repeat these mistakes. Terry T. > > Any changes would have to be made very carefully so as not to create chaos. That goes for the points below as well. > > (2) coef() and vcov() behave inconsistently, which can be problematic because one often uses them together in code. > > (3) As you noticed in your second message, lm() has a singular.ok argument and glm() doesn't. > > I'll take a look at the code for glm() with an eye towards creating a patch, but I'm a bit reluctant to mess with the code for something as important as glm(). > > Best, >   John ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: vcov and survival

Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: vcov and survival

Open this post in threaded view
|