hadley wrote:
>
>> Am I doing something wrong, here? If not, which are the real AIC and
>> logLik
>> values for the different models?
>
>
The difference here is that summary() is using REML=TRUE and anova()
is using REML=FALSE. It makes sense that anova (which is typically being
used to c
> Am I doing something wrong, here? If not, which are the real AIC and logLik
> values for the different models?
I don't think it's reasonable to expect that the log-likelihood
computed by different functions be should comparable. Are the
constant terms included or dropped?
Hadley
--
http://ha
At 16:22 15/04/2009, Jonathan Williams wrote:
Dear R Helpers,
I have noticed that when I use lmer to analyse data, the summary function
gives different values for the AIC, BIC and log-likelihood compared with the
anova function.
I do not think I have seen a reply to this.
What happens if you
Dear R Helpers,
I have noticed that when I use lmer to analyse data, the summary function
gives different values for the AIC, BIC and log-likelihood compared with the
anova function.
Here is a sample program
#make some data
set.seed(1);
datx=data.frame(array(runif(720),c(240,3),dimnames=list(NUL
4 matches
Mail list logo