similar to: What can I use instead of ks.test for the binomial distribution ?

Hello all, I am trying to understand the different results I am getting from the following 3 commands: chisq.test(c(62,50), p = c(0.512,1-0.512), correct = F) # p-value = 0.3788 binom.test(x=62,n=112, p= 0.512) # p-value = 0.3961 2*(1-pbinom(62,112, .512)) # p-value = 0.329 Well, the binom.test was supposed to be "exact" and give the same results as the pbinom, while the chisq.test

Hi Folks, The recent correspondence about "strange fisher.test result", and especially Peter Dalgaard's reply on Tue 03 April 2007 (which I want to investigate further) led me to take a close look at the code for binom.test(). I now have a query! The code for the two-sided case computes the p-value as follows: if (p == 0) (x == 0) else if (p == 1) (x == n)

running R 1.4.1 on MAC and 1.2.2 on Linux When I use run binom.test with small N the results are a little perplexing to me >binom.test(9,20,p=0.5) gives the below plus other stuff 95 percent confidence interval: 0.2305779 0.6847219 Now: >pbiom(9,20,0.6847219) [1] 0.02499998 # i.e., lower 2.5% of distribution >pbinom(9,20,0.2305779) [1] 0.9923132 >pbinom(8,20,0.2305779)

Dear Listers, I am trying to use "rbinom" in my C code, but i always get zeros as output no matter the probability. Am not sure what I am doing wrong because the function has worked before. Attached in an example. Noticed that "rbinom" expects 'n' to be REAL. Regards, Vumani R 2.3.1 (2006-06-01) Windows XP Gcc /* Called this file binom.c and then ran rcmd shlib on it

Hi all, I am wondering whether there is a small bug in the binom.test function of the ctest library (I'm using R 1.6.0 on windows 2000, but Splus 2000 seems to have the same behaviour). Or perhaps I've misunderstood something. the command binom.test(11,100,p=0.1) and binom.test(9,100,p=0.1) give different p-values (see below). As 9 and 11 are equidistant from 10, the mean of the

R-experts: A quick question, please. >From a lab exp, I got 12 positives out of 50. To get 90% CI for this , I think binom.test might be the one to be used. Is there a better way or function to calculate this? > binom.test(x=12, n=50, p=12/50, conf.level = 0.90) Exact binomial test data: 12 and 50 number of successes = 12, number of trials = 50, p-value = 1 alternative

Full_Name: Andrew Grant McDowell Version: R 1.1.1 (but source in 1.3.0 looks fishy as well) OS: Windows 2K Professional (Consumer) Submission from: (NULL) (194.222.243.209) In article <xeQ_6.1949$xd.353840@typhoon.snet.net>, johnt@tman.dnsalias.com writes >Can someone help? In R, I am generating a vector of 1000 samples from >Bin (1000, 0.25). I then do a Kolmogorov Smirnov test

On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 mcdowella@mcdowella.demon.co.uk wrote: > Full_Name: Andrew Grant McDowell > Version: R 1.1.1 (but source in 1.3.0 looks fishy as well) > OS: Windows 2K Professional (Consumer) > Submission from: (NULL) (194.222.243.209) Please upgrade: we've found a number of Win2k bugs and worked around them since then, let alone teh bug fixes and improvements in R .... >

Hi, I want to compute p value of sign test for sample size=15 from normal distr., sd=0.5, mean=1, alternative should be two sided. Is this code correct in this situation? binom.test(sum(rnorm(15,1,0.5)>0),15,p=0.5,alternative="two")$p.value Or should I use another code (function) e.g. rbinom? Thank you very much. kind regards, T. Bal [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

I need to run binomial tests (binom.test) on a large set of data, stored in a table - 600 tests in total. The values of x are stored in a column, as are the values of n. The data for each test are on a separate row. For example: X N 11 19 9 26 13 21 13 27 18 30 It is a two-tailed test, and P in all cases is 0.5. My question is: Is there a quicker way of running these tests without having to

Full_Name: Uffe H?gsbro Thygesen Version: 2.2.0 OS: linux Submission from: (NULL) (130.226.135.250) Hello all. pbinom(q=0,size=0,prob=0.5) returns the value NaN. I had expected the result 1. In fact any value for q seems to give an NaN. Note that dbinom(x=0,size=0,prob=0.5) returns the value 1. Cheers, Uffe

Dear R Users, Is the p-value reported in a two-tailed binomial exact test in error or is it a feature? If it is a feature, could someone provide a reference for its two-tailed p-value computations? Using Blaker's (2000 - Canad. J. Statist 28: 783-798) approach,the p-value is the minimum of the two-tailed probabilities $P \left(Y\geq y_{obs}\right)$ and $P\left(Y\leq y_{obs}\right)$

Dear All, I have been trying to simulate data from a fitted glm using the simulate() function (version details at the bottom). This works for lm() fits and even for lmer() fits (in lme4). However, for glm() fits its output does not make sense to me -- am I missing something or is this a bug? Consider the following count data, modelled as gaussian, poisson and binomial responses: counts

I'm trying to compute sample size requirements for a binomial exact test. we want to show that the proportion is at least 90% assuming that it is 95%, with 80% power so any asymptotic approximations are out of the questions. I was planning on using binom.test to perform the simple test against a prespecified value, but cannot find any functions for computing sample size. do any exist?

Frede Aakmann T?gersen wrote: > Perhaps > > http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA266969&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf > > is something that you can use? Thanks a lot - that might help. Rainer > > > > Best regards > > Frede Aakmann T?gersen > Scientist > > > UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS > Faculty of Agricultural Sciences > Dept.

On 08/04/2023 5:53 p.m., Martin Maechler wrote: >>>>>> Christophe Dutang >>>>>> on Sat, 8 Apr 2023 14:21:53 +0200 writes: > > > Dear all, > > > Using rmultinom() in a stochastic model, I found this function returns an error message 'NA in probability' for an infinite probability. > > > Maybe, a more

> > Hi All: > > I am using R to calculate exact 95% confidence interval using Clopper > Pearson method. I am using the following code but it seems to get into a > loop and not get out of it, it goes on forever although I am looping it > only 10 times across 63 sites with 10 observations per site. I was hoping > to get some help. > > Thanks > Anamika >

Hi, I would have thought that these two constructions would produce the same result but they do not. Resp <- rbinom(10, 1, 0.5) Stim <- rep(0:1, 5) mm <- model.matrix(~ Stim) Xb <- mm %*% c(0, 1) ifelse(Resp, log(pnorm(Xb)), log(1 - pnorm(Xb))) pnorm(as.vector(Xb), lower.tail = Resp, log.p = TRUE) > ifelse(Resp, log(pnorm(Xb)), log(1 - pnorm(Xb))) [1] -0.6931472 -1.8410216

Dear R users, I?m trying to optimize simultaneously two binomials inequalities (used in acceptance sampling) which are nonlinear solution, so there is no simple direct solution. Please, let me explain shortly the the problem and the question as following. The objective is to obtain the smallest value of 'n' (sample size) satisfying both inequalities: (1-alpha) <= pbinom(c, n, p1)

Dea'R' helpers I have following data - prob = c(0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5) frequency = c(100, 75, 45, 30, 25) no_trials = c(10, 8, 6, 4, 2) freq1 = rbinom(frequency[1], no_trials[1], prob[1]) freq2 = rbinom(frequency[2], no_trials[2], prob[2]) freq3 = rbinom(frequency[3], no_trials[3], prob[3]) freq4 = rbinom(frequency[4], no_trials[4], prob[4]) freq5 = rbinom(frequency[5],