You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi,
I have one variable (raw) and its rescaled version from 0 to 10 (normalized), transformed through min-max normalization formula. normalized = (raw i- min(raw)) / (max(raw) - min(raw)).
Since raw and normalized are a linear re-parameterizations of each other, I expected the same AIC from fitting a binary phylogenetic logistic regression through phyloglm with each of them as predictor and presence as a response:
However, the two models have a very different AIC
raw$aic: 1168.742
normalized$aic: 1112.437
As a comparison, if a run a non-phylogenetic regression with glm I get the same AIC (1158).
glm(presence~raw, data = git, family = "binomial")
glm(presence~normalized, data = git, family = "binomial")
This difference in the AIC of the two models (raw and normalized) is problematic when I try to compare raw and normalized with some other predictor (let's call it other) since I get the weird situation in which, for example, raw is a better predictor than other, but normalized is worse (when, as far I can understand, they should have the same perfomance).
Hi,
I have one variable (
raw
) and its rescaled version from 0 to 10 (normalized
), transformed through min-max normalization formula.normalized
= (raw i- min(raw)) / (max(raw) - min(raw)).Since
raw
andnormalized
are a linear re-parameterizations of each other, I expected the same AIC from fitting a binary phylogenetic logistic regression throughphyloglm
with each of them as predictor andpresence
as a response:raw <- phyloglm(presence ~ raw, data = git, phy = git.tree, method = "logistic_MPLE", btol = 30) normalized <- phyloglm(presence ~ normalized, data = git, phy = git.tree, method = "logistic_MPLE", btol = 30)
However, the two models have a very different AIC
raw$aic: 1168.742
normalized$aic: 1112.437
As a comparison, if a run a non-phylogenetic regression with
glm
I get the same AIC (1158).This difference in the AIC of the two models (raw and normalized) is problematic when I try to compare
raw
andnormalized
with some other predictor (let's call itother
) since I get the weird situation in which, for example,raw
is a better predictor thanother
, butnormalized
is worse (when, as far I can understand, they should have the same perfomance).I don't know what I am missing, but if someone want to the explore data they are available on my drive at this link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/192lPTVECtIZZHkc7hhwyvXYDBwL5kVvP/view?usp=drive_link
Thank you so much,
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: