search for: 0.0271

Hello, While doing test of normality under R and SAS, in order to prove the efficiency of R to my company, I notice that Anderson Darling, Cramer Van Mises and Shapiro-Wilk tests results are quite the same under the two environnements, but the Kolmogorov-smirnov p-value really is different. Here is what I do: > ks.test(w,pnorm,mean(w),sd(w)) One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test data: w D

Hi Bob, are these performance regressions real? They look pretty serious. Ciao, Duncan. On 10/12/11 09:40, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/332/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time >

I made an ANOVA with repeated mesures (aov(Mesure~Distance*Genre*Correct+Error(Sujet/(Distance*Genre*Correct)), data)) and I would like to extract the pvalues. The output is: ----------------------------------------------------------- Error: Sujet Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) Residuals 21 97.082 4.623 Error: Sujet:Distance Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) Distance

Yes, they are real. I re-ran the two tests with the biggest execution time regressions, and the results were completely reproducible. On Oct 12, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Bob, are these performance regressions real? They look pretty serious. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > On 10/12/11 09:40, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >> >>

Question: When survfit() function is used upon a coxph object, the 'n' returned is vastly smaller (n=6) than the number of distinct loans in the dataset used. I am trying to estimate a Cox proportional hazards model for a set of loans (over 6000) using using time varying covariates. For this 6000+ loans, I have some 62,000 different vectors representing the loans at different periods of

Hi, I've got this model and following Hothorn et al advices, I used glht for a post hoc comparison > modezqM<-glm(rojos~estacion*zona3,quasipoisson,subset=(edadysexo=="M")) > anova(modezqM,test="F") Df Deviance Resid. Df Resid. Dev F Pr(>F) NULL 293 41148

Hello, I’ve fitted a Garch(2,1) model with function 'garchFit()' from the package 'fGarch': > m1 <- garchFit(formula = ~garch(2,1),data = X,trace = F) * See 'summary(m1)' OUTPUT BELOW * PROBLEM: My alpha1 term is not significant and I would like to make a NEW model, say m2, that does not contain alpha1, but I am not sure how to specify this with the garchFit()

A big compile time regression. Any ideas? Ciao, Duncan. On 22/07/11 19:13, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/253/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time > Current 253 0 2011-07-22 16:22:04

On Jul 24, 2011, at 3:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > A big compile time regression. Any ideas? > > Ciao, Duncan. False alarm. For some reason that I have not yet been able to figure out, these tests run significantly more slowly when I run them during the daytime, which I did for that run. I checked a few of the worst regressions reported here and they all recovered in subsequent

I've searched the Web with Google and do not find what might cause this particular error from an invocation of cenboxplot: cenboxplot(cu.t$quant, cu.t$ceneq1, cu.t$era, range=1.5, main='Total Recoverable Copper', ylab='Concentration (mg/L)', xlab='Time Period') Error in if (n > 0) (1L:n - a)/(n + 1 - 2 * a) else numeric() : argument is of length zero I do

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

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".