<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: GLM / Poisson with Overdispersion // use of AICc in Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/552817#M76806</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Both platforms include AICc for all models fit by them. They do not distinguish this unusual case and omit AICc.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It appears, however, that AICc might not be correct in this case. The calculation is under investigation.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2022 12:20:32 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Mark_Bailey</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-10-05T12:20:32Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>GLM / Poisson with Overdispersion // use of AICc</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/551591#M76739</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have encountered the following issue while modeling with GLM/Poisson the data in the attached table (Response = Count, Regressor = X).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Data visual exploration suggests a clear relationship between X and Count, but comparison of AICc for model with X vs null model favors the Null model (just intercept).&amp;nbsp; Scripts to reproduce the two models are embedded.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I believe I have found an explanation in the following note in the book by Burnham Anderson&amp;nbsp; (Model Selection and Multimodel Inference Second Edition, 2002), but would like someone to confirm. If this is right, it is unfortunate that this has not been fixed in JMP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;One must be careful when using some standard software packages (e.g.,&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;SAS GENMOD), since they were developed some time ago under a hypoth&amp;#2;esis testing mode (i.e., adjusting χ2 test statistics by cˆ to obtain F-tests). In&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;some cases, a separate estimate of c is made for each model, and variances&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;and covariances are multiplied by this model-specific estimate of the variance&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;inflation factor. Some software packages compute an estimate of c for every&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;model, thus making the correct use of model selection criteria tricky unless&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;one is careful. Instead, we recommend that the global model be used as a basis&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;for the estimation of a single variance inflation factor c.&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ps. using negative binomial in generalized regression (lasso), the min aicc model is the one with X as regressor, as one would expect.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Matteo&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2023 20:52:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/551591#M76739</guid>
      <dc:creator>matteo_patelmo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-06-10T20:52:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLM / Poisson with Overdispersion // use of AICc</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/552026#M76761</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The AICc is useful information when selecting a model from among many model candidates. Are there more candidates that you did not present here?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I do not think that AICc is valid when you fit the model with only the constant term. Here is the Whole Model Test for the model with X and the model without X.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="with X.PNG" style="width: 379px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/45987iD549F8FB1DBF1ACA/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="with X.PNG" alt="with X.PNG" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;With X&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="without X.PNG" style="width: 377px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/45988iC136619CC6308F89/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="without X.PNG" alt="without X.PNG" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Without X&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It doesn't make sense that the Reduced -LogLikelihood is so different because it should be the same model (intercept only). The large difference in AICc is due to this discrepancy. I do not think that it is due to the issue raised in the literature that you cited. That issue is about the earlier practice of computing a separate VIF for each model.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The Regression Plot and the Studentized Deviance Residual by Predicted plot show a good fit with X&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You have a single regression, X. The inferential tests provided in the GLM should suffice to decide if X is important.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="whole model test.PNG" style="width: 474px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/45989iDE266B680B24AABF/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="whole model test.PNG" alt="whole model test.PNG" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;The whole model is significant.&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;The term for X is significant.&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Over-dispersion is not significant.&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Lack of fit is not significant.&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2022 14:40:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/552026#M76761</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mark_Bailey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-10-03T14:40:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLM / Poisson with Overdispersion // use of AICc</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/552754#M76795</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks Mark, I will study in detail your explanation, still a bit tricky for me :).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Matteo&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2022 07:57:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/552754#M76795</guid>
      <dc:creator>matteo_patelmo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-10-05T07:57:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLM / Poisson with Overdispersion // use of AICc</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/552758#M76797</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Mark,&amp;nbsp; some answers/comments (&lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;your statements in red&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;Are there more candidates that you did not present here?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/FONT&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/EM&gt;No, this is a very simple case (but real data), good in my opinion to understand the underlying statistical machinery.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;I do not think that AICc is valid when you fit the model with only the constant term.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/FONT&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/EM&gt;If this is so, why do both GLM and Generalized Regression output AICc for the null models and the latter displays it&amp;nbsp; in the solution path ?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks if you can further clarify this.&lt;BR /&gt;Matteo&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:23:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/552758#M76797</guid>
      <dc:creator>matteo_patelmo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-10-05T08:23:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLM / Poisson with Overdispersion // use of AICc</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/552817#M76806</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Both platforms include AICc for all models fit by them. They do not distinguish this unusual case and omit AICc.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It appears, however, that AICc might not be correct in this case. The calculation is under investigation.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2022 12:20:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/552817#M76806</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mark_Bailey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-10-05T12:20:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLM / Poisson with Overdispersion // use of AICc</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/553038#M76816</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks again Mark. Looking forward to receiving more updates on the investigation!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Matteo&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2022 17:16:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/553038#M76816</guid>
      <dc:creator>matteo_patelmo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-10-05T17:16:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLM / Poisson with Overdispersion // use of AICc</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/568418#M77910</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your diligence in bringing this one to our attention!&amp;nbsp; We have confirmed that the AICc calculation is incorrect, and we have identified it as a fix in a future release of JMP.&amp;nbsp; -JMP Technical Support&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 12 Nov 2022 05:59:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/GLM-Poisson-with-Overdispersion-use-of-AICc/m-p/568418#M77910</guid>
      <dc:creator>PatrickGiuliano</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-11-12T05:59:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

