search for: andrisignorel

While using the Hodges Lehmann Mean in DescTools (DescTools::HodgesLehmann), I found that it generated incorrect answers (see <https://github.com/AndriSignorell/DescTools/issues/97> https://github.com/AndriSignorell/DescTools/issues/97). The error is driven by the existence of tied values forcing wilcox.test in Base R to switch to an approximate algorithm that returns incorrect results - see <https://aakinshin.net/posts/r-hodges-lehmann-problems/&gt...

Greetings, I am having a problem with DescTools::Quantile (a function computing quantiles from weighted samples): # these sum to one probWeights = c( 0.0043, 0.0062, 0.0087, 0.0119, 0.0157, 0.0204, 0.0257, 0.0315, 0.0378, 0.0441, 0.0501, 0.0556, 0.06, 0.0632, 0.0648, 0.0648, 0.0632, 0.06, 0.0556, 0.0501, 0.0441, 0.0378, 0.0315, 0.0257, 0.0204, 0.0157, 0.0119, 0.0087,

...ret these results. Better still would be to just fix these cases, but I haven?t dug super deep into the codebase yet, so I?m not completely sure how difficult that would be. Details and examples: - https://aakinshin.net/posts/r-hodges-lehmann-problems/ - Discussion in DescTools (https://github.com/AndriSignorell/DescTools/issues/97) 3. `*signrank` functions hang for large values of `n`. The exact value varies, but tends to be around `n>=1000`. `wilcox.test` supports an `exact` argument?should an inexact approximation be implemented for *signrank functions with `n>=1000`? An Edgeworth approximation...