We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
There is an inconsistency in the reference model formula between GAMs and GAMMs (here shown with objects from the unit tests):
> refmods$rstanarm.gam.gauss.stdformul.with_wobs.without_offs.trad$formula y_gam_gauss ~ xco.1 + xco.2 + xco.3 + xca.1 + xca.2 + s(s.1) > refmods$rstanarm.gamm.gauss.stdformul.with_wobs.without_offs.trad$formula y_gamm_gauss ~ xco.1 + xco.2 + xco.3 + xca.1 + xca.2 + s.1 + s(s.1) + (xco.1 | z.1)
so the GAM lacks the extra s.1 term. This is probably related to
s.1
> formula.gamm4(fits$rstanarm.gam.gauss.stdformul.with_wobs.without_offs) y_gam_gauss ~ xco.1 + xco.2 + xco.3 + xca.1 + xca.2 + s(s.1) > formula.gamm4(fits$rstanarm.gamm.gauss.stdformul.with_wobs.without_offs) y_gamm_gauss ~ xco.1 + xco.2 + xco.3 + xca.1 + xca.2 + s.1 + s(s.1) + (xco.1 | z.1)
However, this doesn't seem to have any consequences for the candidate models in the forward search: First running
debug(search_forward) vs_gam <- varsel(refmods$rstanarm.gam.gauss.stdformul.with_wobs.without_offs.trad, nclusters = 1, nclusters_pred = 1)
and then debugging search_forward() until size 2 gives
search_forward()
> cands [1] "s(s.1)" "xco.1" "xco.2" "xco.3" "xca.1" "xca.2" "s.1"
so both s.1 and s(s.1) are considered as candidates (as desired). Similarly, for the GAMM, we get from
s(s.1)
vs_gamm <- varsel(refmods$rstanarm.gamm.gauss.stdformul.with_wobs.without_offs.trad, nclusters = 1, nclusters_pred = 1)
and debugging search_forward() until size 2:
> cands [1] "s(s.1)" "(1 | z.1)" "xco.1" "xco.2" "xco.3" "xca.1" "xca.2" "s.1"
so again, both s.1 and s(s.1) are considered as candidates (as desired).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
There is an inconsistency in the reference model formula between GAMs and GAMMs (here shown with objects from the unit tests):
so the GAM lacks the extra
s.1
term. This is probably related toHowever, this doesn't seem to have any consequences for the candidate models in the forward search: First running
and then debugging
search_forward()
until size 2 givesso both
s.1
ands(s.1)
are considered as candidates (as desired). Similarly, for the GAMM, we get fromand debugging
search_forward()
until size 2:so again, both
s.1
ands(s.1)
are considered as candidates (as desired).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: