search for: cwilcox_sigma

...n, but `qwilcox(0.5, 50, 51)` runs in 5 > milliseconds. The new version runs in roughly 1 millisecond for both. This > is probably because of internal logic that requires many more `free/calloc` > calls if either population is larger than `WILCOX_MAX`, which is set to 50. > Also because cwilcox_sigma has to be evaluated, and this is slightly more demanding since it uses k%d. There is a tradeoff here between memory usage and time of execution. I am not a heavy user of the U test but I think the typical use case does not involve several hundreds of tests in a session so execution time (my 2 cent...

...is in German and can be found in https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/LoefflerWilcoxonMannWhitneyTest.pdf and the author has uploaded a translation into English in https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/1/19/MannWhitney_151102.pdf. This function uses this approach. */ static int cwilcox_sigma(int k, int m, int n) { /* this relates to the sigma function below */ int s, d; s=0; for (d = 1; d <= m; d++) { if (k%d == 0) { s=s+d; } } for (d = n+1; d <= n+m; d++) { if (k%d == 0) { s=s-d; } } return s; } /* this can replace cwilcox. It runs faster and uses way...

...media.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/LoefflerWilcoxonMannWhitneyTest.pdf >> and the author has uploaded a translation into English in >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/1/19/MannWhitney_151102.pdf. This >> function uses this approach. */ >> >> static int >> cwilcox_sigma(int k, int m, int n) { /* this relates to the sigma function >> below */ >> int s, d; >> >> s=0; >> for (d = 1; d <= m; d++) { >> if (k%d == 0) { >> s=s+d; >> } >> } >> for (d = n+1; d <= n+m; d++) { >> if (k%...