search for: l_y

Hello, I am looking for some help with this question: how could I test structural breaks in a instrumental variables´s model? For example, I was trying to do something with my model with three time series. tax_ivreg <- ivreg(l_y ~ l_x2 + l_x1+ dl_y | lag(l_x2, -1)+lag(l_x2, -2)+ lag(l_x1, -1)+lag(l_x1, -2)+lag(l_y, -1)+lag(l_y, -2), data=tax1) summary(tax_ivreg) ## after estimating it, something weird happened with the several tests in package "strucchange". For example: cusum <- efp(l_y ~ l_x2 + l_x1+ dl_y...

I am using 32-bit R 3.1.2 on Windows 7. I recently conducted an `R CMD check --as-cran` on a recently-developed package and received only the 'New submission' note. Research on StackOverflow and on R-devel suggested this could be ignored. I also used devtools::build_win() and received no notes or warnings, other than the one mentioned previously. Lastly, I conducted an `R CMD check` with

I'm trying to fit a nested mixed model using lmer and have some questions about the output and my model formulations. I have replicate measures on Lines which are strictly nested within Populations. (a) So if I want to fit a model where Line is a random effect and Populations are fixed and the random Line effect is constant across Populations, I have: measure_ijk = mu + P_i + L_ij +

...ccf() function. So, I wrote a naive function of my own (see below). Unsurprisingly, this function is not very fast. Do you think that it is possible to do better, or should I accept my fate ? Bruno. my_ccf <- function (X, Y, lag.before = NULL, lag.after = NULL) { l_X <- length(X) l_Y <- length(Y) if (l_Y != l_X) { cat ("X and Y should have same size !") return } if (is.null(lag.before)) { lag.before <- l_X / 10 #should do 10*log10(N/m) } if (is.null(lag.after)) { lag.after <- l_X / 10 # idem lag.before. } res <- lis...

Dear R-listers, I want to reperfrom a poisson distribution test that presented in a recent-published biological research paper (Plant Physiology 2008, vol 148, pp. 1189-1200). That test is about the occurrence number of a kind of gene in separate chromosomes. For instance: The observed gene number in chromosome A is 36. The expected gene number in chromosome A is 30. Then, the authors got a

...@test3 > ^ > <stdin>:34:2: note: possible intended match here > movl n, %eax > ^ > /home/nnelson/Documents/llvm-project/llvm/utils/release/rc3/llvm-project/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/asm-modifier.ll:37:10: error: CHECK: expected string not found in input > ; CHECK: movl L_y$non_lazy_ptr, %ecx > ^ > <stdin>:43:8: note: scanning from here > test4: # @test4 > ^ > <stdin>:46:2: note: possible intended match here > movl y, %eax > ^ > > -- > > ******************** > Testing: 0.. 10.. 20.. 30.. 40.. 50.. 60.....

Hi, I've tagged LLVM 10.0.1-rc3. This will hopefully be the last release candidate, please test it out and report results on this thread. Thanks, Tom

Dear All, I have already posted before on the list about data mining and it has proved very useful. I have now a training dataset consisting of N objects of M<<N different kinds (actually, M is usually 3 to 5, whereas N is of the order of 1000). Every object has its own label L_i, i=1...N, that is known. For each of these objects I measure some property in time (let's say I measure it

On 3 January 2015 at 13:49, Steven Ranney wrote: | I am using 32-bit R 3.1.2 on Windows 7. | | I recently conducted an `R CMD check --as-cran` on a recently-developed | package and received only the 'New submission' note. Research on | StackOverflow and on R-devel suggested this could be ignored. I also used | devtools::build_win() and received no notes or warnings, other than the one |

************* Content Filter Notification ************** The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content. Source mailbox: <s-luppescu at uchicago.edu> Destination mailbox(es): <r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch> Policy: Dirty Words(shit) Action: Quarantine Recipient, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail. ******************* End of message *******************

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: >> I'm definitely interested in improving coalescing and it sounds like >> this would fall under that work. Do you have references to papers >> that talk about the various algorithms? > > Some suggestions: > > @InProceedings{Budimlic02, > AUTHOR = {Zoran Budimlic and Keith D. Cooper and Timothy

...*kYTmGaG(k=0JaGQa?V at ah))FD25YbalJ;kR#`^Wr$ zfATc5`3e0Zr(5J~47wD(9-CV`Z1oHJ{UMthTWo9&84mk&yIuPIKAk*`ZvWI=^7-?^ zAbcEb`?&n$y={l)@?}}sOL_fE260V%3V~-XKf~9*_B45(^Y~+rMNUntm{`}*RnBHJ zrqel#<%qm6T+o}8WldQ%*rvg{xV~nsrM8a7SzKfBUUL2RF4OrW#xm!*_{c?4sYnY! z`6&U<4Y_ at 7pT(6up15$HOP3zu*=L_Y>x48-+1lEmE*;aOLz*DCaPd)o{IQ3)y?emn z(E&HcBdXn-)L;H4N`jG+#3+g^B`;Enyicc-(;sx$=nv>`3>gdtY!3$vd;KUj*y%<o zv!WntHF*?qXb?icoKm!UDImTgiOuuxkf)!1hRc^Pv%S3?_W*?;NfNY<>KCh(>!K(~ zvlC|1jM;2PqAN08QzlF5%CIcwxW-a at k2Zpk7N9j}&+Z_E<I3fy(OQ#b30u7Zh0uiD z^JjkS&(Sd%&zh^;81D0...