similar to: Removing Bad Data

Dear all, I'm using R 2.8.1 under Windows Vista on a dual core 2,4 GhZ with 4 GB of RAM. I'm trying to reproduce a result out of "Analysis of Financial Time Series" by Ruey Tsay. In R I'm using the fGarch library. After fitting a ar(3)-garch(1,1)-model > model<-garchFit(~arma(3,0)+garch(1,1), analyse) I'm saving the results via > result<-model

Hi all: Can someone advice me on how to hold the residuals Mean sq value on a string so it can be used in other calculations. I was trying something like this: Msquare<-dfr$Mean sq but fails..Thanks dfr <- read.table(textConnection("percentQ Efficiency 1.565 0.0125 1.94 0.0213 0.876 0.003736 1.027 0.006 1.536 0.0148 1.536 0.0162 2.607 0.02 1.456 0.0157 2.16 0.0103

Dear sir, I am extremely sorry for messing up the logic asking for help w.r.t. my earlier mails   I have tried to explain below what I am looking for.     I have a database (say, currency_rates) storing datewise currency exchange rates with some base currency XYZ.   currency_rates <- data.frame(date = c("12/31/2010", "12/30/2010", "12/29/2010",

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

On 23.11.2012, at 15:12, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > On 23/11/2012, at 5:46 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > >> Adding LLVMdev, since this is intimately related to the optimization passes. >> >>> I think this is roughly because some function level optimisations are >>> worse than O(N) in the number of instructions. >>

A big compile time regression. Any ideas? Ciao, Duncan. On 22/07/11 19:13, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/253/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time > Current 253 0 2011-07-22 16:22:04

With the case-insensitive file system patch from http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9656#c15 applied to dragonegg 2.9, the following Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks are seen on x86_64-apple-darwin10 under gcc 4.5.3svn using the dragonegg plugin... ================================================================================ Date & Time : 8 Apr 2011 19:52:56 Test Name :

Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386 autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release build. llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.

Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

The following fit does not make sense to me, please, correct me if I have a logical error. > moddowsn Call: coxph(formula = Surv(start, stop, resp) ~ sn + matfac2, data = coxsn1, method = "efron") coef exp(coef) se(coef) z p sn2 0.0497 1.051 0.02030 2.450 1.4e-02 sn3 -0.0532 0.948 0.02038 -2.610 9.0e-03 sn4 -0.0410 0.960

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download

My mistake sir. I was literally engrossed in my stupid logic, and while doing so, overlooked the simple and very effective solution you had offered. Sorry once again sir and will certainly try to be very careful in future. Thanks again and have a great weekend sir. Regards Amelia --- On Fri, 7/1/11, Petr PIKAL <petr.pikal@precheza.cz> wrote: From: Petr PIKAL

On Jul 24, 2011, at 3:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > A big compile time regression. Any ideas? > > Ciao, Duncan. False alarm. For some reason that I have not yet been able to figure out, these tests run significantly more slowly when I run them during the daytime, which I did for that run. I checked a few of the worst regressions reported here and they all recovered in subsequent

Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64. autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD] [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release

I'm puzzled by the behaviour of factors in rma models, see example and comments below. I'm sure there's a simple explanation but can't see it... Thanks for any input John Hodgson ------------------------------------- code/selected output ----------------- library(metafor) ## Set up data (from Lenters et al A Meta-analysis of Asbestos and Lung Cancer... ##

Hello All, I have the following dataset: Year 2006 2007 Jan Jan 0.0204 0.0065 Feb Feb 0.0145 0.0082 Mar Mar 0.0027 0.0122 > dput(d_tmp) structure(list(Year = c("Jan", "Feb", "Mar"), `2006` = c(0.0204, 0.0145, 0.0027), `2007` = c(0.0065, 0.0082, 0.0122)), .Names = c("Year", "2006", "2007"), row.names = c("Jan",

Dear all, I am a relative novice with R, so please forgive any terrible errors... I am working with a GLM that describes a response variable as a function of a categorical variable with three levels and a continuous variable. These two predictor variables are believed to interact. An example of such a model follows at the bottom of this message, but here is a section of its summary table:

Hi all: I have always used SPSS to estimate weekly covariance based on a linear regression model but have to hard code the model Std. Error and the Mean-Square and then execute one week a the time. I was wondering if someone could give me an idea on how to estimate weekly(WK) covariance using the summary and anova of "dfr"(lineal model below). I have to do this for 52

I performed an aov() analysis and got the following results: Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) block 1 0.0040 0.0040 0.3282 0.5672 Residuals 269 3.2766 0.0122 Can anyone tell me how to extract the F value column and Pr(>F) column from the summary output of aov analysis? Many thanks in advance, Liqing Eco. Evol. Biol. UCIrvine