[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Cavallo, Alexander" <acavallo@lexecon.com> |

To |
"'Statalist (statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu)'" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: GLM question |

Date |
Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:17:51 -0500 |

Title:

I am confused about the GLM model using normal errors and log link. In Hardin and Hilbe's book, "Generalized Linear Models and Extensions" there is the following quote on page 59:

"A better approach is to internalize withing the model itself the log transformation of the response. The log link in effect logs the linear predictor, or x*beta, rather than the response to linearize the relationship between the response and predictors. .... The implementation of a log link within the ML algorithm is straightfoward - simple substitute ln(x*beta) for each instance of x*beta in the log-likelihood function. ... Creating a log-normal, or log-linked Gaussian, model using the standard IRLS algorithm is only a bit more complicated ... we must change the link function from eta=mu to eta=ln(mu), and the inverse link function from mu=eta to mu=exp(eta)."

For both ML and IRLS I thought we need to replace each instance of mu or x*beta in the log-likelihood function with exp(x*beta), I don't understand why to use the link function log for ML but the inverse link function exp for IRLS.

Can anyone explain?

--Alex Cavallo

Lexecon, Inc.

332 South Michigan Avenue

Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 322-0208 voice

(312) 322-0218 fax

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: logistic ---- assessment of model fit via external validation** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: GLM question** - Previous by thread:
**st: svy commands and missing cases** - Next by thread:
**st: RE: GLM question** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |