We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
null_dev
The null deviations seem to be incorrect when I run GLMNet.glmnet -- I'm getting absurdly small numbers.
GLMNet.glmnet
Example: this code
# Simulated data set X_sim = randn((100,10)); beta_sim = randn(10); y_sim = randn(100) .+ (X_sim * beta_sim .+ 3.14) sim_path = GLMNet.glmnet(X_sim, y_sim)
Produces the output:
Least Squares GLMNet Solution Path (64 solutions for 10 predictors in 266 passes): ─────────────────────────────── df pct_dev λ ─────────────────────────────── [1] 0 0.0 3.15936 [2] 1 0.0716368 2.87869 [3] 1 0.131111 2.62295 [4] 1 0.180487 2.38994 [5] 1 0.221481 2.17762 [6] 2 0.270351 1.98417 . . .
Which seems fine -- but then when I run
sim_path.null_dev
I get an absurdly small number:
6.240013019814641e-34
In contrast, when I compute the null deviance (sum of squares) myself:
size(X_sim, 1) * var(y_sim)
I get
2389.5611952108716
Have I misunderstood something? It's easy enough to compute the null deviance on my own, but it seems like GLMNet.jl isn't computing it as advertised.
And I don't see it covered in your unit tests. So maybe this was a small blind spot.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Ref
Ptr
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
The null deviations seem to be incorrect when I run
GLMNet.glmnet
-- I'm getting absurdly small numbers.Example: this code
Produces the output:
Which seems fine -- but then when I run
I get an absurdly small number:
In contrast, when I compute the null deviance (sum of squares) myself:
I get
Have I misunderstood something? It's easy enough to compute the null deviance on my own, but it seems like GLMNet.jl isn't computing it as advertised.
And I don't see it covered in your unit tests. So maybe this was a small blind spot.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: