search for: 0.0128

Dear sir, I am extremely sorry for messing up the logic asking for help w.r.t. my earlier mails   I have tried to explain below what I am looking for.     I have a database (say, currency_rates) storing datewise currency exchange rates with some base currency XYZ.   currency_rates <- data.frame(date = c("12/31/2010", "12/30/2010", "12/29/2010",

Dear List, I am using both the clm() and clmm() functions from the R package 'ordinal'. I am fitting an ordinal dependent variable with 5 categories to 9 continuous predictors, all of which have been normalised (mean subtracted then divided by standard deviation), using a probit link function. From this global model I am generating a confidence set of 200 models using clm() and the

Using caret on the Titanic data from Kaggle, I tried various models, including rfRules which produces a model, partly described as such: > caret.rfRules.cv$finalModel $model len freq err [1,] "2" "0.0368" "0" [2,] "2" "0.032" "0.05" [3,] "2"

Dear R-helpers: I have a question related to fitting overdispersed count data using lmer. Basically, I simulate an overdispsed data set by adding an observation-level normal random shock into exp(....+rnorm()). Then I fit a lmer quasipoisson model. The estimation results are very off (see model output of fit.lmer.over.quasi below). Can someone kindly explain to me what went wrong? Many thanks in

Hey Buddy, Hope you have been doing well since last contact. If you have the answer to the following question, please let me know. If you have chance to travel up north. let me know. best, -Sean ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sean Zhang <seanecon@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:12 PM Subject: question related to fitting overdispersion count data using lmer

My mistake sir. I was literally engrossed in my stupid logic, and while doing so, overlooked the simple and very effective solution you had offered. Sorry once again sir and will certainly try to be very careful in future. Thanks again and have a great weekend sir. Regards Amelia --- On Fri, 7/1/11, Petr PIKAL <petr.pikal@precheza.cz> wrote: From: Petr PIKAL

Hi, I would like to fit parametric survival models to time-to-event data that are left truncated. I have checked the help page for survreg and looked in the R-help archive, and it appears that the R function survreg from the survival library (version 2.16) should allow me to take account of left truncation. However, when I try the command

Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386 autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release build. llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

A new pixman release 0.33.2 is now available. This is a release candidate for a stable 0.34.0 release. This release comes after little more than 1 year since the previous release (0.32.6). Therefore, the git log is quite long and there are multiple changes, fixes and enhancements. The main changes are: - ARMv6 - Many fast paths implementations were added - PPC64/PPC64LE - Fix all outstanding

Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64. autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD] [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release

Thank you very much for your reply. Your code work well with this example. I modified a little to fit my real data, I got an error massage. Error in split.default(x = seq_len(nrow(x)), f = f, drop = drop, ...) : Group length is 0 but data length > 0 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:21 PM, arun kirshna [via R] < ml-node+s789695n4657196h87@n4.nabble.com> wrote: > Hi, > Try this: >

A new pixman release 0.34.0 is now available. This is a major release, following three development releases in the past six months. It contains all the changes detailed in the last three development releases in the 0.33 series. Please note that this release doesn't contain any changes since the previous development version (0.33.6) was released. For those who didn't follow the

Dear list members, the following hlm was constructed: hlm <- groupedData(laut ~ design | grpzugeh, data = imp.not.I) the grouped data object is located at and can be downloaded: www.anicca-vijja.de/lg/hlm_example.Rdata The following works: library(nlme) summary( fitlme <- lme(hlm) ) with output: ... AIC BIC logLik 425.3768 465.6087 -197.6884 Random effects:

Greetings. I'm trying to recreate in R some regression models I've done in SAS, but I'm not getting the same results. My advisor suspects this may be due to differences in precision between R and SAS. Does anyone know where I can find specifications for R's type double? (It doesn't seem to be in the R Language Definition.) Thanks in advance for any help anyone can

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".

> Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> 於 2016年11月30日 上午5:14 寫道： > >> >> On Nov 29, 2016, at 4:02 AM, Bekket McClane via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> Though there exists lots of researches on parallelizing or scheduling optimization passes, If you open up the time matrices of

Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only