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
Pretty much any statical interpretation of weights requires them to be non-negative, e.g. aggregated observations/frequency weights define a weighted CDF and a CDF must map to [0, 1].
The optimization problem might become non-convex, even for canonical log-link combinations.
Note that with only a few negative weights, the opt problem might still be well defined.
If one uses a true IRLS solver, the LS step takes the square root of the weights.
I also know of one real use case for negative weights:
In particle physics, one sometimes simulates particles (reactions/interactions) and then assigns negative weights to some simulations (rows) such that the overall probabilities are well calibrated.
I could imagine an option check_for_negative-weights with default True.
Is there a reason for which we forbid negative weights (ref)? Some IV weighting schemes use negative weights to isolate compliers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: