similar to: Adding noise

Hello everyone, I am trying to estimate the parameter b. I have Y and X1 which I know and they are both random. However, I also have X2 which I don't know and is also random. I want to estimat b from the model: Y = b*X1 + ( 1 - b ) * X2 Can anyone offer some suggestions. The values of Y and X1 are both pvalues so they are constrained in (0,1). -- Thanks, Jim. [[alternative HTML version

I want to create the mixture formulation of a discrete uniform ie, say f(x) = 1/10, for i = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 and another discrete distribution which has the same values of x, but he probabilities can vary. Can this be done on any package in R? an if so, can the package estimate the 'probabilities' of each of the x value as well as the mixing proportion if I have the data?

Hi, I would like to derive p-values for pair-wise comparison (Tukey's) of effects when the response is a count. I am trying a test case where y ~ Po( lambda(x) ). x has three levels : A, B and C with lambda(x) = 10, 20 and 20 respectively. Hence, p-values for the contrast C - B should distribute uniformally. I have implemented this test case as below but do not get uniform

For time scale that are truly discrete Cox proposed the "exact partial likelihood". I call that the "exact" method and SAS calls it the "discrete" method. What we compute is precisely the same, however they use a clever algorithm which is faster. To make things even more confusing, Prentice introduced an "exact marginal likelihood" which is not

Dear all, I want to simulate from the null distribution of the following 2 x 3 table, 2 5 10 4 8 5 I am using a chi-squared test. Anyone has any idea how to do this? -- Thanks, Jim. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hey I'm not really sure what I should put on here, but I am having trouble with my R code. I am trying to get the p-values, R^2s etc for a number of different groups of variables that are all in one dataset. This is the code: #Stand counter st<-1 #Collections stands<-numeric(67) slopes<-numeric(67) intercepts<-numeric(67) mses<-numeric(67) rsquares<-numeric(67)

Dear all, I have question regarding GLMs: I have a discrete response variable and a continuous explaining variable. Like this: http://www.myimg.de/?img=example1db0f.jpg I want to use a GLM to investigate. I have to specify the "familiy of the distribution of the response variable" - or, maybe more precise, the "family of the distribution of the residuals of the response

Full_Name: Chanseok Park Version: R 2.2.1 OS: RedHat EL4 Submission from: (NULL) (130.127.112.89) pbinom(any negative value, size, prob) should be zero. But I got the following results. I mean, if a negative value is close to zero, then pbinom() calculate pbinom(0, size, prob). dbinom() also behaves similarly. > pbinom( -2.220446e-22, 3,.1) [1] 0.729 > pbinom( -2.220446e-8, 3,.1)

This has a stats question and a R question. I am sure there are many core statisticians here how would know the answer to this simple question. In determining the significant comparisons using the methods in multcomp, the ones that are designated as significant are the ones that do not intersect the zero line. What is the physical meaning of this and why are those considered significant? I can

Is anyone aware of a fast way of doing fisher's exact test for a series of 2 x 2 tables in R? The fisher.test is really slow if n1=1000 and n2 = 1000. -- Thanks, Jim. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Greetings, I have stumbled across some unexpected behavior (potential a bug) in, what I suspect to be R's (2.6.2 on Ubuntu Linux) t.test function; then again the problem may exist in my code. I have shutdown R and started it back up, re-run the code and re-experienced the error. I have searched on Google for the abnormal termination error message "(stderr < 10 * .Machine$double.eps *

Hi, I became a little bit confused when working with the Wilcoxon test in R. As far as I understood, there are mainly two versions: 1) wilcox.test{stats}, which is the default and an approximation, especially, when ties are involved 2) wilcox_test{coin}, which does calculate the distribution _exactly_ even, with ties. I have the following scenario: #---BeginCode--- # big example size = 60

Full_Name: Jason Polak Version: R version 2.5.0 (2007-04-23) OS: Xubuntu 7.04 Submission from: (NULL) (137.122.144.35) Dear R group, I have noticed a strange anomaly with the shapiro.test() function. Unfortunately I do not know how to calculate the shapiro test P values manually so I don't know if this is an actual bug. So, to produce the results, run the following code: pvalues = 0; for

Hi everyone, I have the following problem. I have some small p-values but when I use qnorm(1-4e-30) I get an error. Is there anyway to get around this? -- Thanks, Jim. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Dear all, I observer a strange behavior of the pvalues of the t-test under the null hypothesis. Specifically, I obtain 2 samples of 3 individuals each from a normal distribution of mean 0 and variance 1. Then, I calculate the pvalue using the t-test (var.equal=TRUE, samples are independent). When I make a histogram of pvalues I see that consistently the bin of the smallest pvalues has a lower

Dear R People, I want to include a barplot corresponding to a simple discrete probability distribution in a LaTeX document. I decided to use the pictex driver. After a certain amount of messing about, I came up the stuff below. It does not look too bad, however, there is one very obvious piece of weirdness, ie. the y axis terminates at 0.1 and does not extend down further. I tried to adjust this

I have a print method for a set of statistical tests, vcdExtra::CMHtest, for which I'd like to have more sensible printing of pvalues, as in print.anova(). [Testing this requires the latest version of vcdExtra, from R-Forge **|install.packages("vcdExtra", repos="http://R-Forge.R-project.org")|** ] With my current print method, I get results like this, but all Prob values

Hi all, I have some microarray data on 40 samples that fall into two groups. I have a value for 480k probes for each of those samples. I performed a t test (rowttests) on each row(giving the indices of the columns for each group) then used p.adjust() to adjust the pvalues for the number of tests performed. I then selected only the probes with adj-p.value<=0.05. I end up with roughly 2000

How do we get 2-tailed p-values for the rlm summary? I'm using the following: > fit <- rlm(oatRT ~ oatoacData$erp, psi=psi.bisquare, maxit=100, na.action='na.omit') > fitsum <- summary(fit, cor=F) > print(fitsum) Call: rlm(formula = oatRT ~ oatoacData$erp, psi = psi.bisquare, maxit = 100, na.action = "na.omit") Residuals: Min 1Q Median

It might help if you provided the code you used. It's possible that you didn't use direction="backward" in stepAIC(). Or if you did, it was still running, so whatever else you try will still be slow. The statement "R provides only the pvalues for each level" is wrong: look at the anova() function. Bob On 29 June 2017 at 11:13, Beno?t PELE <benoit.pele at