Refusal at Z = 0 names what it can compute (#777, refusal at Z = 0)

[derrynknife]

Part of #777.

Centring.finish's refusal quoted the baseline's parameters at Z = 0,
which it could not compute ("parameters [inf, 1.5]"), and said every
failure was an over- or underflow. #714's case is a likelihood that
precision does not reproduce, at finite values. It also named a moved
location or scale "running on" by the run-off check made at the
covariate means, as if at Z = 0. It now quotes the parameters by name
where the fit ran, at the means. It then gives one reason: the
parameters that would be out of range at Z = 0, named without values;
or the finite values there that do not reproduce the likelihood; or a
derivative of the move that is not finite. A moved parameter the search
found running on is said to run on "at the covariate means, where the
fit runs". Numbers are formatted plainly.

The semi-parametric refusal (Cox, proportional odds, Fine-Gray) said the
move by exp(beta'center) over- or underflowed even where beta'center was
0 and only the rows' exp(beta'Z) did: it now says so where the move is
not at fault. What is refused is unchanged. CoxFrailty's refusal, CoxPH's
from its first Cox fit, said to fit with center=True, which CoxFrailty
does not take. Its Cox fit now keeps its baseline at the means: only its
coefficients are used, and they are the same either way. Its own refusal
ends with advice it can follow.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01TRhKL2fJBiAAfNo9rihwts

---

Generated by Claude Code