[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
"Matthew Mercurio (matthewmercurio)" <matthewmercurio@fscgroup.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
st: glm and reg produce different results for loglinear model? |

Date |
Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:43:20 -0700 |

I have two variables, (1) outagecost (estimated costs to each customer of a short electrical power interuuption) (2) mwhannual (annual megawatt hours of electricity consumption fpr each customer) Since these variables appear approximately lognormal, I have been estimating the following simple model: reg lnoutagecost lnmwhannual where lnoutagecost and lnmwhannual represent the natural log of the two variables desribed above. The results are: . reg lnoutagecost lnmwhannual Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 32345 -------------+------------------------------ F( 1, 32343) = 9370.20 Model | 34151.9301 1 34151.9301 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual | 117881.722 32343 3.6447368 R-squared = 0.2246 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.2246 Total | 152033.652 32344 4.70052104 Root MSE = 1.9091 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- lnoutagecost | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------- ---- lnmwhannual | .3824726 .0039512 96.80 0.000 .3747282 .3902171 _cons | 5.370938 .0232302 231.21 0.000 5.325406 5.41647 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- I then tried the following model in glm which I had expected to produce identical results: glm outagecost lnmwhannual, link(log) Generalized linear models No. of obs = 52418 Optimization : ML Residual df = 52416 Scale parameter = 7.59e+09 Deviance = 3.97873e+14 (1/df) Deviance = 7.59e+09 Pearson = 3.97873e+14 (1/df) Pearson = 7.59e+09 Variance function: V(u) = 1 [Gaussian] Link function : g(u) = ln(u) [Log] AIC = 25.5881 Log likelihood = -670636.5416 BIC = 3.98e+14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- | OIM outagecost | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------- ---- lnmwhannual | .5568004 .0130092 42.80 0.000 .5313029 .5822979 _cons | 5.355758 .1384432 38.69 0.000 5.084414 5.627102 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Obviously the results are very similar, but not identical. I read the Stata Manual section on GLM and checked a large number of posts on Statalist related to loglinear models, but I was not able to understand exactly why glm using link(log) doesn't produce the same results as logging both variables and using reg. Based on my reading of the Stata manual it appears to have someing to do with the fact that the link() option relates to the expectation od the dependent variable, not the dependent variable itself. Can anyone tell me why the results are different? Matthew G. Mercurio, Ph.D. Senior Consultant Freeman, Sullivan & Co. * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: glm and reg produce different results for loglinear model?***From:*"Clive Nicholas" <clivelists@googlemail.com>

**Re: st: glm and reg produce different results for loglinear model?***From:*"Joao Ricardo F. Lima" <jricardofl@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Re: Difference b/n full and quasi maximum likelihood in heckman selection models??** - Next by Date:
**st: How to handle endogeneity in Heckman selection model?** - Previous by thread:
**st: Re: Difference b/n full and quasi maximum likelihood in heckman selection models??** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: glm and reg produce different results for loglinear model?** - Index(es):

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