similar to: Robust estimation of a geometric random variable

One of my colleagues has a data set from a two-level nested design from which we would like to estimate variance components. But we'd like some idea of what the inevitable outliers are doing, so we were looking for something in R that uses robust (eg Huber) treatment and returns robust estimates of variance. Nothing in my collection of R robust estimation packages (robust, robustbase and MASS

Robust Covariance Estimation Software via Nearest Neighbor Variance Estimation (NNVE) Software to carry out robust covariance estimation by Nearest Neighbor Variance Estimation (NNVE) [Wang and Raftery (2002, J. Amer. Statist. Ass.)] is now available for R and Splus. In the simulation studies published in JASA, this had mean squared error at least 100 times smaller than that of other leading

Robust Covariance Estimation Software via Nearest Neighbor Variance Estimation (NNVE) Software to carry out robust covariance estimation by Nearest Neighbor Variance Estimation (NNVE) [Wang and Raftery (2002, J. Amer. Statist. Ass.)] is now available for R and Splus. In the simulation studies published in JASA, this had mean squared error at least 100 times smaller than that of other leading

Sorry to prolong a thread on something that is clearly off topic, but when Michael Meyer wrote >by using the geometric mean all asymptotic results no longer apply. that is flat our wrong. It's true that the geometric mean converges to something different that E[X], but it does indeed have an asymptotic distribution and one that makes sense in some contexts. There is no reason that

Conservative robust estimation methods do not appear to be currently available in the standard mixed model methods for R, where by conservative robust estimation I mean methods which work almost as well as the methods based on assumptions of normality when the assumption of normality *IS* satisfied. We are considering adding such a conservative robust estimation option for the random effects to

Hello, I'm learning about robust M-estimators right now and had settled on the "Huber Proposal 2" as implemented in MASS, but further reading made clear, that at least 2 further weighting functions (Hampel, Tukey bisquare) exist. In a post from B.D. Ripley going back to 1999 I found the following quote: >> 2) Would huber() give me results that are similar (i.e., close

Dear list members, I have been doing robust regressions in R, using the MASS package for rlm and robustbase for logistic regressions. I must be doing something wrong, because my output does not include r-squares (or adjusted r-squares), or, in the case of glmrob, -2log likelihoods. Does anyone know how to get an output that includes these? Thanks so much for the help

?Dear All I have some data expressed in geometric means and 95% confidence intervals. Can I code them in metafor as: rma(m1i=geometric mean 1, m2i=geometric mean 2, sd1i=geometric mean 1 CI /3.92, sd2i=geometric mean 2 CI/3.92.......etc, measure="MD") All of the studies use geometric means. Thanks! Edward ---------------------------- [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi all, I need to check for a difference between treatment groups in the parameter of the geometric distribution, but with a cut-off (i.e. right censored). In my experiment I stimulated animals to see whether I got a response, and stopped stimulating if the animal responded OR if I had stimulated 10 times. Since the response could only be to a stimulation, the distribution of response times

Hello, I would like to compare two different models in the framework of Cox proportional hazards regression models. On Rsitesearch and google I don't find a clear answer to my question. My R-Code (R version 2.9.0) coxph.fit0 <- coxph(y ~ z2_ + cluster(as.factor(keys))+ strata(stratvar_), method="breslow" ,robust=T ) coxph.fit1 <- coxph(y ~ z_ +

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Sahil Sharma <sahilsharmahimalaya at gmail.com> Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 12:10?PM Subject: r-stats: Geometric Distribution To: <do-use-Contact-address at r-project.org> Hey I want to raise one issue in *r-stats **geometric distribution * function. I have found the dgeom(x,p) which denotes probability density function of geometric

Dear useRs, I'd like to announce a new package called geozoo, short for geometric zoo. It's a compilation of functions to produce high-dimensional geometric objects, including hypercubes and hyperspheres, Boy's surface, the hyper torus and a selection of polytopes. For a complete list, as well as images and movies, visit

Dear list, I have got an array with observational values t and I would like to fit a geometric distribution to it. As I understand the geometric distribution, there is only one parameter, the probability p. I estimated it by 1/mean(t). Now I plotted the estimated density function by plot(ecdf(t),do.points=FALSE,col.h="blue"); and I would like to add the geometric distribution. This

Hi all, I have probably a basic question, but I can't seem to find the answer in the literature or in the R-archives. I would like to do a robust ANCOVA (using either rlm or lmRob of the MASS and robust packages) - my response variable deviates slightly from normal and I have some "outliers". The data consist of 2 factor variables and 3-5 covariates (fdepending on the model).

better posted on r-sig-ecology? -- or maybe even stack exchange? Cheers, Bert On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 7:45?AM Rich Shepard <rshepard at appl-ecosys.com> wrote: > A statistical question, not specific to R. > > I'm asking for a pointer for a source of definitive descriptions of what > types of data are best summarized by the arithmetic, geometric, and > harmonic >

>>>>> Rich Shepard >>>>> on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 07:45:31 -0800 (PST) writes: > A statistical question, not specific to R. I'm asking for > a pointer for a source of definitive descriptions of what > types of data are best summarized by the arithmetic, > geometric, and harmonic means. In spite of off-topic: I think it is a good

By the Strong Law of Large Numbers applied to log(X) the geometric mean of X_1,...,X_n > 0 and IID like X converges toexp(E[log(X)]] which, by Jensen's inequality, is always? <= E[X] and is strictly less than E[X] except in trivial extreme cases. In short: by using the geometric mean all asymptotic results no longer apply. Michael Meyer [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, I am unable to install "robust" package (g++ compile error occurs) if the g++ version is 4.7. However, for g++ 4.6 i am able to install. I was trying to do this in Ubuntu 12.04. R 2.15 itself was installed from the PPA, https://launchpad.net/~marutter/+archive/rrutter. Is it a bug? thanks suresh [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

I want to make a function for geometric seqeunce since testing=function(x){i=1;ans=1;while(true){ans=ans+(1/x)^i ; i=i+1} ;return(ans)} doesn't work... the program is freeze... from my research, i know i should use iterators. I read iterators.pdf at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/iterators/iterators.pdf and didnt find it helps solving my problem at all... Is there any sources I

Dear Rich, It depends how the data is generated. Although I am not an expert in ecology, I can explain it based on a biomedical example. Certain variables are generated geometrically (exponentially), e.g. MIC or Titer. MIC = Minimum Inhibitory Concentration for bacterial resistance Titer = dilution which still has an effect, e.g. serially diluting blood samples; Obviously, diluting the