-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
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
Tricky Results - Potential Bug #60
Comments
Thanks for reporting this.
|
Hi,
|
Given that the 6 classes are identical in terms of parameters, you should see very similar probabilities in What seems to be happening here is that multiple classes latch on to the same data cluster. I would consider testing different validation metrics, including AIC or BIC to penalize unnecessarily complex models. You can also plot metrics for validation with different components (we did something similar in this tutorial). 13 components might get selected as the best fit, but you might observe an elbow at |
@yuanjames are you still stuck with this? I will close, but feel free to reopen if needed. |
Hi,
I recently run LCA with measurement = binary, the results show there were 13 classess in total, however, I found there were 6 (i.e., classes: 1,2,4,5,6,9) classes are exactly same according to model.get_mm_df(). Then, I went to on model.predict(X), I found 1,2,4,5,9 class labels were missing, there were not any data (x) assigned to these classes. So, I manully merged them.
Also, I checked the crosstab, the forementioned classes were missing as well. The number of classes in total is identified by grid search, I assume 13 can produce better metric value, but the fact is there were only 8 classes in total.
Does anyone know the reason?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: