# [R] [Fwd: REML - quasipoisson]

Simon Wood s.wood at bath.ac.uk
Mon Oct 1 10:55:04 CEST 2012

```Hi Greg,

For quasi families I've used extended quasi-likelihood (see Mccullagh
and Nelder, Generalized Linear Models 2nd ed, section 9.6) in place of
the likelihood/quasi-likelihood in the expression for the (RE)ML score.
I hadn't realised that this was possible before the paper was published.

best,
Simon

ps. sorry for slow reply, the original message slipped through my filter
for mgcv related stuff

> hi
>
> I'm puzzled as to the relation between the REML score computed by gam and
> the formula (4) on p.4 here:
>
> I'm ok with this for poisson, or for quasipoisson when phi=1.
>
> However, when phi differs from 1, I'm stuck.
>
> #simulate some data
> library(mgcv)
> set.seed(1)
> x1<-runif(500)
> x2<-rnorm(500)
> linp<--0.5+x1+exp(-x2^2/2)*sin(4*x2)
> y<-rpois(500,exp(linp))
>
> ##poisson
> #phi=1
> m1<-gam(y~s(x1)+s(x2),family="poisson",method="REML")
> phi<-m1\$scale
>
> #formula
> #1st term
> S1<-m1\$smooth[]\$S[]*m1\$sp
> S2<-m1\$smooth[]\$S[]*m1\$sp
> S<-matrix(0,19,19)
> for (i in 2:10)
> {
> for (j in 2:10)
> {
> S[i,j]=S1[i-1,j-1]
> S[i+9,j+9]=S2[i-1,j-1]
> }
> }
> beta<-m1\$coef
> #penalised deviance
> Dp<-m1\$dev+t(beta)%*%S%*%beta
> F1<-Dp/(2*phi)
>
> #2nd term
> F2<-sum(ifelse(y==0,0,y*log(y)-y-log(factorial(y))))
>
> #3rd term
> X<-predict(m1,type="lpmatrix")
> W<-diag(fitted(m1))
> H<-t(X)%*%W%*%X
> ldhs<-determinant(H+S,log=TRUE)\$modulus
> eigS<-eigen(S,only.values=TRUE)\$val
> lds<-sum(log(eigS[1:16]))
> F3<-(ldhs-lds)/2
>
> #4th term
> Mp=3
> F4<-Mp/2*log(2*pi*phi)
>
> F1-F2+F3-F4
> m1\$gcv
> #reml score = formula
>
> ##quasipoisson with scale = 1
> #fitting is identical to the poisson case
> #F1, F3, and F4 unchanged but F2 is now undefined
>
> m2<-gam(y~s(x1)+s(x2),family="quasipoisson",method="REML",scale=1)
> F1+F3-F4
> m2\$gcv
> #reml score = formula with F2 omitted
>
> ##quasipoisson with unknown scale
> m3<-gam(y~s(x1)+s(x2),family="quasipoisson",method="REML",scale=-1)
> phiq<-m3\$scale
>
> #1st term
> S1q<-m3\$smooth[]\$S[]*m3\$sp
> S2q<-m3\$smooth[]\$S[]*m3\$sp
> Sq<-matrix(0,19,19)
> for (i in 2:10)
> {
> for (j in 2:10)
> {
> Sq[i,j]=S1q[i-1,j-1]
> Sq[i+9,j+9]=S2q[i-1,j-1]
> }
> }
> betaq<-m3\$coef
> #penalised deviance
> Dpq<-m3\$dev+t(betaq)%*%Sq%*%betaq
> F1q<-Dpq/(2*phiq)
>
> #2nd term undefined
>
> #3rd term
> Xq<-predict(m3,type="lpmatrix")
> Wq<-diag(fitted(m3))
> Hq<-t(Xq)%*%Wq%*%Xq
> ldhsq<-determinant(Hq+Sq,log=TRUE)\$modulus
> eigSq<-eigen(Sq,only.values=TRUE)\$val
> ldsq<-sum(log(eigSq[1:16]))
> F3q<-(ldhsq-ldsq)/2
>
> #4th term
> Mp=3
> F4q<-Mp/2*log(2*pi*phiq)
>
> F1q+F3q-F4q
> m3\$gcv
>
> #quite different
>
> #but if phiq is replaced by the Pearson estimate of the scale
> P<-sum((y-fitted(m3))^2/fitted(m3))
> phip<-P/(500-sum(m3\$edf))
> F1p<-Dpq/(2*phip)
> F3p<-F3q
> #third term independent of scale
> F4p<-Mp/2*log(2*pi*phip)
> F1p+F3p-F4p
> m3\$gcv
>
> #closer but still wrong
>
> #is there a value of phi which makes this work?
> f<-function(t) (Dpq/(2*t) + F3q + Mp/2*log(2*pi*t) - m3\$gcv)^2
> optimise(f,interval=c(0.5,1.5))\$min->phix
>
> Dpq/(2*phix) + F3q + Mp/2*log(2*pi*phix)
> m3\$gcv
> #but what is phix - not the Pearson estimate or the scale returned by gam?
>
> thanks
>
> Greg Dropkin
>
>
>

--
Simon Wood, Mathematical Science, University of Bath BA2 7AY UK
+44 (0)1225 386603               http://people.bath.ac.uk/sw283

```