<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Ridging has failed to improve likelihood function: Proc Logistics in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Ridging-has-failed-to-improve-likelihood-function-Proc-Logistics/m-p/236826#M12543</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi ,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I am running Proc Logoctics procedure.I got the message "Ridgin failed to improve the likelihood function". I changed the option ridging = absolute and this also gave the same message.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;With Ridging = none &amp;nbsp;, the no. of iteration increased , but still the model ended with same warnning . This time the message was to use halfmax=option and increase no. of steps oe specify a new set of initial parameter estimates using INEST option. What does this mean?.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have 26 predictor variables in the model , is this because of large no. of variables. If so then how do we reduce the variables.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Vishal&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2015 11:21:59 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>vishal_prof_gmail_com</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-11-29T11:21:59Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Ridging has failed to improve likelihood function: Proc Logistics</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Ridging-has-failed-to-improve-likelihood-function-Proc-Logistics/m-p/236826#M12543</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi ,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I am running Proc Logoctics procedure.I got the message "Ridgin failed to improve the likelihood function". I changed the option ridging = absolute and this also gave the same message.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;With Ridging = none &amp;nbsp;, the no. of iteration increased , but still the model ended with same warnning . This time the message was to use halfmax=option and increase no. of steps oe specify a new set of initial parameter estimates using INEST option. What does this mean?.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have 26 predictor variables in the model , is this because of large no. of variables. If so then how do we reduce the variables.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Vishal&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2015 11:21:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Ridging-has-failed-to-improve-likelihood-function-Proc-Logistics/m-p/236826#M12543</guid>
      <dc:creator>vishal_prof_gmail_com</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-11-29T11:21:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Ridging has failed to improve likelihood function: Proc Logistics</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Ridging-has-failed-to-improve-likelihood-function-Proc-Logistics/m-p/236834#M12546</link>
      <description>I had same experience in PROC PHREG. Same message: "ridging failed to improve likelihood".&lt;BR /&gt;When I wrote "ridging=none" the model converged.</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:22:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Ridging-has-failed-to-improve-likelihood-function-Proc-Logistics/m-p/236834#M12546</guid>
      <dc:creator>JacobSimonsen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-11-29T15:22:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Ridging has failed to improve likelihood function: Proc Logistics</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Ridging-has-failed-to-improve-likelihood-function-Proc-Logistics/m-p/236846#M12547</link>
      <description>As per as my thought are concerned it is due to a bad model .You data might have to much of outliers ,super multicollinearity,data not selected correctly ,too many variables and so on ....There is no way machine can fix the issue.&lt;BR /&gt;Reduce the variable , do some one to one regression analysis ,check VIF etc . there is no clear cut answer for this as of now at least from my side</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2015 19:02:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Ridging-has-failed-to-improve-likelihood-function-Proc-Logistics/m-p/236846#M12547</guid>
      <dc:creator>pearsoninst</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-11-29T19:02:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Ridging has failed to improve likelihood function: Proc Logistics</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Ridging-has-failed-to-improve-likelihood-function-Proc-Logistics/m-p/534850#M26936</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;As already pointed out, this is probably a data issue.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I encountered the same warning and for me the problem was so-called &lt;EM&gt;perfect separation&amp;nbsp;&lt;/EM&gt;(a lot can be found by simply googling this term). Loosely explained, this means that for a certain categorical variable, one or more categories / groups only have data for either your success or non-success group.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For example:&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Variable color that can take on Blue, red, yellow.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Y = 1 (success): Blue 100, red 50, yellow 50&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Y = 0 (fail / non-success): Blue = 50, red = 100, yellow = 0&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For the Yellow group, there are only successes.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;HTH&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:13:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Ridging-has-failed-to-improve-likelihood-function-Proc-Logistics/m-p/534850#M26936</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kazzie</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-02-12T14:13:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Ridging has failed to improve likelihood function: Proc Logistics</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Ridging-has-failed-to-improve-likelihood-function-Proc-Logistics/m-p/534910#M26939</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;It is not really possible to know exactly what caused this, but you can try various combinations of the TECH= and RIDGING= options. You could also try using the FIRTH option which maximizes a penalized likelihood. Since you have a fair number of predictors, you might be flirting with separation issues, so the the FIRTH option might help. Also you could consider using a model selection method (but don't use BACKWARD). The more modern Lasso method is available in PROC HPGENSELECT.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:28:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Ridging-has-failed-to-improve-likelihood-function-Proc-Logistics/m-p/534910#M26939</guid>
      <dc:creator>StatDave</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-02-12T16:28:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

