similar to: under certain conditions, model.matrix appears to lack one column (PR#646)

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 rnassar@duke.edu wrote: > Dear R Team, > > # Summary of the problem: setting contrasts as > > contrasts(g) <- contr.treatment > or > contrasts(g) <- matrix(c(1,-1,0),ncol=1) > (i.e. without quotes around `contr.treatment' or `contr.sum', etc.) > and fitting an lm model without an intercept results in a model matrix > that lacks

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Rashid Nassar wrote: > Dear Professor Ripley, > > Thank you very much for your kind explanation. If I may lamely say > something in my defence, even as I apologize for my error: I mistook the > sentence "the (quoted) name of a function" to mean "optionally quoted" > because of the parentheses surrounding "quoted", and was

Hi, I need to build a function to generate one column for each level of a factor in the model matrix created on an arbitrary formula (instead of using the available contrasts options such as contr.treatment, contr.SAS, etc). My approach to this was first to use the built-in function for contr.treatment but changing the default value of the contrasts argument to FALSE (I named this function

Dear R-devel list members, I'd like to suggest a more flexible procedure for generating contrast names. I apologise for a relatively long message -- I want my proposal to be clear. I've never liked the current approach. For example, the names generated by contr.treatment paste factor to level names with no separation between the two; contr.sum simply numbers contrasts (I recall an

Dear experts: Is it possible to create a new function based on stats:::model.matrix.default so that an alternative factor coding is used when the function is called instead of the default factor coding? Basically, I'd like to reproduce the results in 'mat' below, without having to explicitly specify my desired factor coding (identity matrices) in the 'contrasts.arg'. dd

R version 2.10.1 (2009-12-14) Copyright (C) 2009 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing ISBN 3-900051-07-0 R is free software and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. You are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type 'license()' or 'licence()' for distribution details. Natural language support but running in an English locale R is a collaborative project with

I am using RW 1.2.3. on an IBM PC 300GL. Using the data bp.dat which accompanies Helen Brown and Robin Prescott 1999 Applied Mixed Models in Medicine. Statistics in Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA which is also found at www.med.ed.ac.uk/phs/mixed. The data file was opened and initialized with > dat <- read.table("bp.dat") >

For ordered factor the natural contrast coding would be to parametrize by the succsessive differences between levels, which does not assume equal spacing of factor levels as does the polynomial contrasts (implicitly at least). This requires the contr.cum, which could be: contr.cum <- function (n, contrasts = TRUE) { if (is.numeric(n) && length(n) == 1) levs <- 1:n

Hi all, I believe this is a bug in the model.matrix function. I'd like a second opinion before filing a bug report. If I have a nested covariate B with multiple values for just one level of A, I can not get a non-singular design matrix out of model.matrix > df <- data.frame(A = factor(c("a", "a", "x", "x"), levels = c("x",

Hi! I would like to suggest to make it possible, in one way or another, to get meaningful contrast names when using contr.sum(). Currently, when using contr.treatment(), one gets factor levels as contrast names; but when using contr.sum(), contrasts are merely numbered, which is not practical and can lead to mistakes (see code at the end of this message). This issue was discussed quickly in 2005

Hi, perhaps this is a stupid question, but i need some help about Helmert contrasts in the Cox model. I have a survival data frame with an unordered factor `group' with levels 0 ... 5. Calculating the Cox model with Helmert contrasts, i expected that the first coefficient would be the same as if i had used treatment contrasts, but this is not true. I this a error in reasoning, or is it

Hi, I found that using different contrasts (e.g. contr.helmert vs. contr.treatment) will generate different fitted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression using multinom(); while the fitted probabilities from binary logistic regression seem to be the same. Why is that? and for multinomial logisitc regression, what contrast should be used? I guess it's helmert? here is an example

Hi All, I'm using a call to eval to evaluate a linear model, however, I have found that despite calling options (contrasts=c("contr.sum", "contr.poly")) prior to evaluation, my model factors are coded using the indicator coding associated with the "contr.treatment" contrast option As an inelegant work around I am setting the contrast option explicitly in

Dear r-devel list members, I'm posting this message here because it concerns the nlme package, which is maintained by R-core. The problem I'm about to describe is somewhere between a bug and a feature request, and so I thought it a good idea to ask here rather posting a bug report to the R bugzilla. I was made aware (by Ben Bolker) that the car::Anova() method for "lme"

Dear R-users, I want to fit a linear model with Y as response variable and X a categorical variable (with 4 categories), with the aim of comparing the basal category of X (category=1) with category 4. Unfortunately, there is another categorical variable with 2 categories which interact with x and I have to include it, so my model is s "reg3: Y=x*x3". Using fit.contrast to make the

Hi Folks, I'm a bit puzzled by the following (example): N<-factor(sample(c(1,2,3),1000,replace=TRUE)) unique(N) # [1] 3 2 1 # Levels: 1 2 3 So far so good. Now: contrasts(N)<-contr.treatment(3, base=1, contrasts=FALSE) contrasts(N) # 1 2 # 1 1 0 # 2 0 1 # 3 0 0 whereas: contr.treatment(3, base=1, contrasts=FALSE) # 1 2 3 # 1 1 0 0 # 2 0 1 0 # 3 0 0 1 contr.treatment(3, base=1,

Tian It appears the attachment might not have worked so I'll embed Bill's message at the end. Peter Alspach > -----Original Message----- > From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch > [mailto:r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Peter Alspach > Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 8:02 a.m. > To: T Mu; R-Help > Subject: Re: [R] confusing about contrasts concept

Dear list members, After further testing, I found that the following simplified version of model.matrix.lme(), which omits passing xlev to the default method, is more robust. The previous version generated spurious warnings in some circumstances. model.matrix.lme <- function(object, ...){ data <- object$data if (is.null(data)){ NextMethod(formula(object),

Hi all, I am trying to do a ordered probit regression using polr(), replicating a result from SAS. >polr(y ~ x, dat, method='probit') suppose the model is y ~ x, where y is a factor with 3 levels and x is a factor with 5 levels, To get coefficients, SAS by default use the last level as reference, R by default use the first level (correct me if I was wrong), The result I got is a

Hello, I've fitted a parametric survival model by > survreg(Surv(Week, Cens) ~ C(Treatment, srmod.contr), > data = poll.surv.wo3) where srmod.contr is the following matrix of contrasts: prep auto poll self home [1,] 1 1 1.0000000 0.0 0 [2,] -1 0 0.0000000 0.0 0 [3,] 0 -1 0.0000000 0.0 0 [4,] 0 0 -0.3333333 1.0 0 [5,] 0 0