It's fine. Just interpret them as you would any other (lower is better).
And it is the printed logLik that is out of step here. log-likelihoods
_should_ be negative.
That is not quite the case; in models with small variances log-likelihoods
can easily become positive, consider eg:
O course! And for the same reason, my stupid comment should be ignored.
-- Bert
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Ingmar Visser i.vis...@uva.nl wrote:
It's fine. Just interpret them as you would any other (lower is better).
And it is the printed logLik that is out of step here.
On Aug 23, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Ingmar Visser wrote:
It's fine. Just interpret them as you would any other (lower is
better).
And it is the printed logLik that is out of step here. log-
likelihoods _should_ be negative.
That is not quite the case; in models with small variances log-
Dear R users,
I obtained negative AIC and BIC and positive Loglik values in a gls model.
Is this normal? how should I interpret them? Thanks!
AIC BIC logLik
-659.978 -587.5541 345.989
Best
Gary
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
It's fine. Just interpret them as you would any other (lower is better).
On 22 August 2012 16:43, Gary Dong pdxgary...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear R users,
I obtained negative AIC and BIC and positive Loglik values in a gls model.
Is this normal? how should I interpret them? Thanks!
AIC
On Aug 22, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Jeremy Miles wrote:
It's fine. Just interpret them as you would any other (lower is
better).
And it is the printed logLik that is out of step here. log-likelihoods
_should_ be negative.
--
David.
On 22 August 2012 16:43, Gary Dong pdxgary...@gmail.com
Inline.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Jeremy Miles jeremy.mi...@gmail.com wrote:
It's fine. Just interpret them as you would any other (lower is better).
I don't think so. I believe all 3 values are the negative of what they
should be. AIC is defined as -2*log(L) + k*{degrees of freedom
7 matches
Mail list logo