similar to: Weighted Mean By Factor Using "BY"

Fellow R programmers, I'd like to submit SQLDF statements with R objects as column names. For example, I want to assign "X" to "var1" (var1<-"X") and then refer to "var1" in the SQLDF statement. SQLDF needs to understand that when I reference "var1", it should look for "X" in the dataframe. This is necessary because my SQLDF

Hello fellow R programmers, I'm trying to use package e1071's naiveBayes function to create a model with weighted data. See example below, variable "d" is a count variable that provides the # of records for the given observation combination. Is anyone aware of a "weight" argument to this method? I've been unsuccessful in my research. Thanks, Mike

Hi, This is more of a general question than a pure R one, but I hope that is OK. I want to combine one-tailed independent p-values using the weighted version of fisher's inverse chi-square method. The unweighted version is pretty straightforward to implement. If x is a vector with p-values, then I guess that this will do for the unweighted version: statistic <- -2*sum(log(x)) comb.p <-

Greetings, I'm having trouble finding a simple way to calculate a weighted histogram where there may be zero raw counts in a given interval. Given equal-length vectors of data 'data' and weights 'w', and breaks (intervals) for the histogram, I calculate a weighted histogram as follows (see MASS's 'truehist' for an unweighted histogram): bin <- cut(data,

Hi, If I used drop1 in a weighted lm fit, it seems to ignore the weights in the AIC calculation of the dropped terms, see the example below. Can this be right? Yan -------------------- library(car) > unweighted.model <- lm(trSex ~ (river+length +depth)^2- length:depth, dno2) > Anova(unweighted.model) Anova Table (Type II tests) Response: trSex Sum Sq Df F value

I would like to apply network measures (such as betweenness centrality, upper boundedness, etc.) to a weighted graph with non-integer weights, defined by a euclidean distance matrix. The package sna provides the measures that I want to use, but seems only to operate on binary graphs. I have read work by Mark Newman (http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0407503/), who suggests that a weighted graph

In the HistData package, I have a data frame, PearsonLee, containing observations on heights of parent and child, in weighted form: library(HistData) > str(PearsonLee) 'data.frame': 746 obs. of 6 variables: $ child : num 59.5 59.5 59.5 60.5 60.5 61.5 61.5 61.5 61.5 61.5 ... $ parent : num 62.5 63.5 64.5 62.5 66.5 59.5 60.5 62.5 63.5 64.5 ... $ frequency: num 0.5 0.5

Hello all, I am using the function lm to do my weighted least square regression. model<-lm(Y~X1+X2, weight=w) What I am confused is the r.squared. It does not seem that the r.squared for the weighted case is an ordinary 1-RSS/TSS. What is that precisely? Is the r.squared measure comparable to that obtained by the ordinary least square? <I also notice that model$res is the unweighted

Hey guys, I can't get my Naive Bayes model to predict. Forgive me if its simple... I've tried about everything and can't get it to work. Reproduceable code below. Thank you, Mike -- Michael Schumacher Manager Data & Analytics - ValueClick mike.schumacher@gmail.com * Functional Example Code from UCLA:

Dear R-experts: I am using survreg() to estimate the parameters of a Weibull density having right-censored observations. Some observations are weighted. To do that I regress the weighed observations against a column of ones. When I enter the data as 37 weighted observations, the parameter estimates are exactly the same as when I enter the data as the corresponding 70 unweighted observations.

R2.3, WinXP Dear all, I am using the following functions: f1 = Phi1+(Phi2-Phi1)/(1+exp((log(Phi3)-log(x))/exp(log(Phi4))) f2 = Phi1+(Phi2-Phi1)/(1+exp((log(Phi3)-log(r)-log(x))/exp(log(Phi4))) subject to the residual weighting Var(e[i]) = sigma^2 * abs( E(y) )^(2*Delta) Here is my question, in steps: 1. Function f1 is separately fitted to two different datasets corresponding to

dear list, my question concerns the use of `eval' in defining the model formula for `nls' (version 2.6.2.). consider the following simple example, where the same model and data are used to perform unweighted and weighted fits. I intentionally used very uneven weights to guarantee large differences in the results #================================CUT=========================== ln

I?m running some logistic regressions and I?ve been trying to include weights in the equation. However, when I run the model, I get this warning message: Here?s what it says: Warning message: In eval(expr, envir, enclos) : non-integer #successes in a binomial glm! I think it is because the weights are non-integer values. What is a good way to run logistic regressions in R when using

I understand that the hat matrix is a function of the predictor variable alone. So, in the following example why do the values on the diagonal of the hat matrix change when I go from an unweighted fit to a weighted fit? Is the function hatvalues giving me something other than what I think it is? library(ISwR) data(thuesen) attach(thuesen) fit <- lm(short.velocity ~ blood.glucose)

2 days ago I asked this on r-help, but no luck... since this is actually a programming question, I post it here again: my question concerns the use of `eval' in defining the model formula for `nls' when performing weighted fits. (I use version 2.6.2., but according to NEWS there were no changes to `nls' in 2.7.0, so the problem is still present). in this scenario their

Hi, im little bit confused about Cohen's Kappa and i should be look into the Kappa function code. Is the easy formula really wrong? kappa=agreement-chance/(1-chance) many thanks christian ############################################################################### true-negativ:7445 false-positive:3410 false-negativ:347 true-positiv:772 classification-aggrement:68,6%

I sent this to r-devel the other day but didn't get any takers. This may not be a bug but rather an inconsistency. I'm not sure if this is intentional. summary.lm stores weighted residuals whereas I think most users will want print.summary.lm to summarize unweighted ones as if saying summary(resid(fit)). > set.seed(1) > dat <- data.frame(y = rnorm(15), x = rnorm(15), w = 1:15)

Dear all, I am having v.4.36 of Quantreg package and I noticed strange behaviour when weights were added. Could anyone please explain me what if the results are really strange or the behavioiur is normal. As an example I am using dataset Engel from the package and my own weights. x<-engel[1:50,1] y<-engel[1:50,2] w<-c(0.00123, 0.00050, 0.00126, 0.00183, 0.00036, 0.00100, 0.00122,

Hello, I'm looking to calculate a 95% confidence interval about my estimate for a sample's weighted mean, where the calculated confidence interval would equal the t-test confidence interval of the sample in the case when all of the weights are equal. My initial thought was to simply implement a modified version of the t-test function but substituting the weighted variance and mean for the

I'm trying to plot and compare weighted histograms and I can't seem find where to start. I have data similar to this: Miles2LAX RADAM2005Pct LAWA2005Pct 35.57 .00123 .00684 24.74 .00118 .00187 27.09 .00965 .00876 16.23 .00587 .00397 { ...