similar to: standard error for the estimated value (lmer fitted model)

Hello, everybody, There is the first time for me to post a question, because I really cannot find answer from books, websites or my colleagues. Thank you in advance for your help! I am running likelihood ratio test to find if the simpler model is not significant from more complicated model. However, when I run LRT to compare them, the test did not return F value and p-value for me. What's the

Dear R users, I encounter a problem regarding space control in xyplot. Basically, I want to control spaces between label, tick and axis. I remember there is a function called mgp in general plot. Is there a similar function for xyplot or xYplot? Below is my basic code: myplotkid<-xyplot(expected_offspringnumber~afr|decade,groups=SES,data1,

Dear R users, I encounter a problem regarding number of significant digits on y-axis. Below is my basic code: myplotkid<-xyplot(expected_offspringnumber~afr|decade,groups=SES,data1, auto.key=list(space="right"),layout=c(9,1),xlab="",ylab="Offspring number", aspect="fill",scales=list(x=list(draw=F)),strip=T) >From this code, you can see there are 9

?ginv provides 'Modern Applied Statistics with S' (MASS), 3rd, by Venables and Ripley as the sole reference. I happen to have this book (4th ed) on loan from our library, and as far as I can see, ginv is mentioned there twice, and it is *used*, not *explained* in any way. (It is used on p. 148 in the 4th edition.) ginv does not appear in the index of MASS. ginv is an implementation of

I am using the ginv function from MASS and have run across this problem that I do not understand. If I define the matrix A as below, its g-inverse does not satisfy the Moore-Penrose condition A %*% ginv(A) %*% A = A. The matrix A is X'WX in a quadratic regression using some very large dollar values. The much simpler matrix B does satisfy the MP condition. Am I doing something wrong? Is

### An numeric problem in R ######## ###I have two matrix one is########## A <- matrix(c(21.97844, 250.1960, 2752.033, 29675.88, 316318.4, 3349550, 35336827, 24.89267, 261.4211, 2691.009, 27796.02, 288738.7, 3011839, 31498784, 21.80384, 232.3765, 2460.495, 25992.77, 274001.6, 2883756, 30318645, 39.85801, 392.2341, 3971.349, 40814.22, 423126.2,

Dear All, While inverting a matrix the following error appears on my console: Error in solve.default(my_matrix) : Lapack routine dgesv: system is exactly singular With this respect, I have been replacing the solve() function with ginv(): the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse of a matrix. These are the questions I would like to ask you: 1. Would you also replace solve() with ginv() in

Hello, This is in response to a post from a couple of years back regarding Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measures of Sampling Adequacy. (http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/R/help/05/12/17233.html) As it turns out, last year Trujillo-Ortiz et al. at the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California wrote and posted a script for MATLAB that does the job. You can see it (with a discussion of KMO statistics) at

Dear R users, I have a problem in plotting 3 dimensional graph using mixed models. My model is sur_prop ~ afr_c+I(afr_c^2)+I(afr_c^3)+byear_c+I(byear_c^2)+I(byear_c^3)+I(byear_c^4)+(1|Studyparish)+afr_c:byear_c +afr_c:I(byear_c^2)+afr_c:I(byear_c^3)+afr_c:I(byear_c^4)+I(afr_c^2):byear_c+I(afr_c^2):I(byear_c^2)+I(afr_c^2):I(byear_c^3)+I(afr_c^2):I(byear_c^4) This is a study on the effect of

Why do x<-b%*%ginv(A) and x<-solve(A,b) give different results?. It seems that I am missing some basic feature of matrix indexing. e.g.: A<-matrix(c(0,-4,4,0),nrow=2,ncol=2) b<-c(-16,0) x<-b%*%ginv(A);x x<-solve(A,b);x Thanks in advance, Angel

Hello to everybody, I have a quadratic programming problem that I am trying to solve by various methods. One of them is to use the quadprog package in R. When I check positive definiteness of the D matrix, I get that one of the eigenvalues is negative of order 10^(-8). All the others are positive. When I set this particular eigenvalue to 0.0 and I recheck the eigenvalues in R, the last

since ginv can deal with both singular and non-singular conditions, is there any other difference between them? if I use ginv only, will be any problem? thanks [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Dear all; I'm kind of confused with the results obtained using the ginv function from package MASS and pinv function from Matlab. Accroding to the documentation both functions performs a Moore-Penrose generalized inverse of a matrix X. The problem is when I change the tolerance value, say to 1E-3. Here is some output from ginv 195.2674402 235.6758714 335.0830253 8.977515484 -291.7798965

Dear friends, I am writing a package that I think may be of interest to many people so I am in the process to build-check-write-thedocumentation for it. I have some questions regarding the "rules" that a package should abide in order to be consistent with the other packages on CRAN. I have read and reread the Writing R extension manual and googled the mailing list and I have found

Generalised Inverse: The Moore-Penrose Generalisied Inverse is probably better defined as a pseudo-Inverse that arises in solving least squares problems. Another well known pseudo-Inverse is the so-called Drazin pseudo-Inverse. If memory serves (and it's been 10-12 years!) it can be obtained via a diagonalisation. Anyway, I dare say Prof. Ripley (among others) probably has "all the

Dear R-help list members, I am hoping to get you help in reproducing a problem I am having That is only reproducible on a large-memory machine. Whenever I run the following lines, get a segfault listed below: *** caught segfault *** address 0x7f092cc46e40, cause 'invalid permissions' Traceback: 1: La.svd(x, nu, nv) 2: svd(X) 3: ginv(bigmatrix) Here is the code that I run:

Hello All, I would like to optimize a (log-)likelihood function subject to a number of linear constraints between parameters. These constraints are equality constraints of the form A%*%theta=c, ie (1,1) %*% 0.8,0.2)^t = 1 meaning that these parameters should sum to one. Moreover, there are bounds on the individual parameters, in most cases that I am considering parameters are bound between zero

Thorsten is right. There is a direct formula for computing the Moore-Penrose inverse using the singular value composition of a matrix. This is incorporated in the following: mpinv <- function(A, eps = 1e-13) { s <- svd(A) e <- s$d e[e > eps] <- 1/e[e > eps] return(s$v %*% diag(e) %*% t(s$u)) } Hope it helps. Dietrich

R Users, Emine Bayman sent this out earlier and we do not think it went through. Appologies if it did. We want to fit GLMM with lmer with binomial data and a one-way random effects model (overall mean is a fixed effect and there are random effects for each binomial). We are using the Laplace method. We are simulating multiple data sets and use the Laplace method with control = list

I am having a problem with the foreign library correctly reading some integer data. Specifically, d _ read.dta('aptaa.dta') > d[1:5,] scenario metcode yr ginv cons gocc abs dvac gmre gmer 1 1 AA 2002 0.007 1377 -0.071 51710 0.071 -0.011 -0.127 2 1 AA 2003 0.000 0 -0.016 62568 0.014 -0.043 -0.538 3 1 AA 2004 0.000 0 -0.002