similar to: strang behaviour of mice package

I have a function myFunction(beta,x) where beta is a vector of coefficients and x is a data frame (think of it as a matrix). I want to optimize the function myFunction() by ONLY changing beta, i.e. x stays constant, with 4 constraints. I have the following code (with a separate source file for the function): rm(list=ls()) source('mySourceFile')

> > If one compares the random effect estimates, in fact, one sees that > > they are in the correct proportion, with the expected signs. They are > > just approximately eight orders of magnitude too small. Is this a bug? > > BLUPs are essentially shrinkage estimates, where shrinkage is > determined with magnitude of variance. Lower variance more > shrinkage towards

I am fitting models to the responses to a questionnaire that has seven yes/no questions (Item). For each combination of Subject and Item, the variable Response is coded as 0 or 1. I want to include random effects for both Subject and Item. While I understand that the datasets are fairly small, and there are a lot of invariant subjects, I do not understand something that is happening here, and in

I am fitting models to the responses to a questionnaire that has seven yes/no questions (Item). For each combination of Subject and Item, the variable Response is coded as 0 or 1. I want to include random effects for both Subject and Item. While I understand that the datasets are fairly small, and there are a lot of invariant subjects, I do not understand something that is happening

Hi, You should look at Pinheiro and Bates (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-Plus. It describes how to format the correlation matrix to pass to functions lme and gls. Basically, the correlation matrix has to be one of the corStruct classes, probably corSymm for your example. So in the call to lme (or gls if you really have no random effects), use something like:

Dear List, I'm trying to draw vector in XYZ with rgl under use of a cylinder3d. Therefore I scale and rotate a basis-cylinder). However, somehow the rotation is wrong as verified by overplotting arrow3d(). Where is my mistake? library(heplots) library(rgl) # ... 2 vectors data=data.frame(row.names=c('X','Y','Z'), x1=c(2,1,5),y=c(4,3,2))

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> Because the qspinlock needs to touch a second cacheline (the per-cpu mcs_nodes[]); add a pending bit and allow a single in-word spinner before we punt to the second cacheline. It is possible so observe the pending bit without the locked bit when the last owner has just released but the pending owner has not yet taken ownership. In this case

Because the qspinlock needs to touch a second cacheline; add a pending bit and allow a single in-word spinner before we punt to the second cacheline. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> --- include/asm-generic/qspinlock_types.h | 12 ++- kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 109 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

Hello everybody! I have a problem when I try to perform a forecast of an ARIMA model produced by an auto.arima function. Here is what I'm doing: c<-auto.arima(fil[[1]],start.p=0,start.q=0,start.P=0,start.Q=0,stepwise=TRUE,stationary=FALSE,trace=TRUE) # fil[[1]] is time series of monthly data ARIMA(0,0,0)(0,1,0)[12] with drift : 1725.272 ARIMA(0,0,0)(0,1,0)[12] with drift

Because the qspinlock needs to touch a second cacheline; add a pending bit and allow a single in-word spinner before we punt to the second cacheline. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long at hp.com> --- include/asm-generic/qspinlock_types.h | 12 +++- kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 117

Estimados Les consulto por redes neuronales, hay diversos artículos como los siguientes (el último tienen un error actualmente). Pero mi pregunta va un poco por otro lado. http://www.r-bloggers.com/build-your-own-neural-network-classifier-in-r/ http://www.r-bloggers.com/classification-using-neural-net-in-r/ Básicamente se puede calcular un valor, por ejemplo doblar 2,4 grados a la derecha, luego 1

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> Because the qspinlock needs to touch a second cacheline; add a pending bit and allow a single in-word spinner before we punt to the second cacheline. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long at hp.com> --- include/asm-generic/qspinlock_types.h | 12 +++-

Hola, Esta es una forma de hacerlo... Mira que lo primero que he modificado es el fichero "x.csv" para sustituir los espacios en los nombres por "_". Y también he quitado los acentos y las eñes... He utilizado el paquete RNNS y la función "mlp()" para ajustar la red. #------------------------------------------- > x <- read.csv("x.csv",

XXX: merge into the pending bit patch.. It is possible so observe the pending bit without the locked bit when the last owner has just released but the pending owner has not yet taken ownership. In this case we would normally queue -- because the pending bit is already taken. However, in this case the pending bit is guaranteed to be released 'soon', therefore wait for it and avoid

Hi, I am trying to get different combinations of a vector of different size and find their sum. For example, if I have a vector (i,j) where i and j can be anything from 0 to 5, i get these combinations (0,0), (0,1), (1,0), (1,1), (2,0), ...... (5,5) and find sum of these as 0, 1, 1, 2, ..... , 10. I used outer functions to get this and it worked. What if I have a vector (i,j,k) where all i, j ,

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 02:47:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Because the qspinlock needs to touch a second cacheline; add a pending > bit and allow a single in-word spinner before we punt to the second > cacheline. Could you add this in the description please: And by second cacheline we mean the local 'node'. That is the: mcs_nodes[0] and mcs_nodes[idx] Perhaps it might be

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 02:47:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Because the qspinlock needs to touch a second cacheline; add a pending > bit and allow a single in-word spinner before we punt to the second > cacheline. Could you add this in the description please: And by second cacheline we mean the local 'node'. That is the: mcs_nodes[0] and mcs_nodes[idx] Perhaps it might be

Hi, Here are some numbers for my version -- also attached is the test code. I found that booting big machines is tediously slow so I lifted the whole lot to userspace. I measure the cycles spend in arch_spin_lock() + arch_spin_unlock(). The machines used are a 4 node (2 socket) AMD Interlagos, and a 2 node (2 socket) Intel Westmere-EP. AMD (ticket) AMD (qspinlock + pending + opt) Local:

Hi, Here are some numbers for my version -- also attached is the test code. I found that booting big machines is tediously slow so I lifted the whole lot to userspace. I measure the cycles spend in arch_spin_lock() + arch_spin_unlock(). The machines used are a 4 node (2 socket) AMD Interlagos, and a 2 node (2 socket) Intel Westmere-EP. AMD (ticket) AMD (qspinlock + pending + opt) Local:

2014-05-21 18:49+0200, Radim Kr?m??: > 2014-05-19 16:17-0400, Waiman Long: > > As for now, I will focus on just having one pending bit. > > I'll throw some ideas at it, One of the ideas follows; it seems sound, but I haven't benchmarked it thoroughly. (Wasted a lot of time by writing/playing with various tools and loads.) Dbench on ext4 ramdisk, hackbench and ebizzy