Timeline for If the log-likelihood is negative, should we choose it? - model comparison
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Apr 20, 2020 at 2:31 | history | suggested | kkkkkk2020 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I think this answer is correct. The person who commented didn't realized logLink=loglikelihood for cox model in R
|
| Apr 19, 2020 at 18:06 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 20, 2020 at 2:31 | |||||
| Feb 18, 2020 at 15:20 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Feb 18, 2020 at 15:39 | |||||
| May 12, 2017 at 21:38 | comment | added | whuber♦ | "large (i.e. in direction of positive infinity) logLik" sounds like exactly the opposite of what should be done: it corresponds to minimizing the likelihood. Could you clarify what you mean by that? | |
| May 12, 2017 at 20:22 | comment | added | Michael R. Chernick | I am not sure how this answers the question. It seem to be more like advice and maybe not all accurate. | |
| May 12, 2017 at 20:17 | review | Late answers | |||
| May 12, 2017 at 20:22 | |||||
| May 12, 2017 at 19:59 | review | First posts | |||
| May 12, 2017 at 23:54 | |||||
| May 12, 2017 at 19:56 | history | answered | Natalie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |