similar to: qpois minor bug (PR#8058)

Hi Martin, thanks for verifying. I agree that the Cornish-Fisher seems to struggle with the small size parameters, but I also don't have a good idea how to replace it. But I think fixing do_search() is possible: I think the problem is that when searching to the left y is decremented only if `pnbinom(y - incr, n, pr, /*l._t.*/TRUE, /*log_p*/FALSE)) < p` is FALSE. I think the solution is

>>>>> Constantin Ahlmann-Eltze via R-devel >>>>> on Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:05:36 +0200 writes: > Thanks Ben for verifying the issue. It is always reassuring to hear > when others can reproduce the problem. > I wrote a small patch that fixes the issue > (https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/11): > diff --git

Full_Name: Morten Welinder Version: 2.1.0 OS: src only Submission from: (NULL) (216.223.241.212) Now that pcauchy has been fixed, it is becoming clear that qcauchy suffers from the same problems. qcauchy(pcauchy(1e100,0,1,FALSE,TRUE),0,1,FALSE,TRUE) should yield 1e100 back, but I get 1.633178e+16. The code below does much better. Notes: 1. p need not be finite. -Inf is ok in the log_p

Thanks Ben for verifying the issue. It is always reassuring to hear when others can reproduce the problem. I wrote a small patch that fixes the issue (https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/11): diff --git a/src/nmath/qnbinom.c b/src/nmath/qnbinom.c index b313ce56b2..d2e8d98759 100644 --- a/src/nmath/qnbinom.c +++ b/src/nmath/qnbinom.c @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ double qnbinom(double p, double size,

Full_Name: Morten Welinder Version: snapshot OS: Submission from: (NULL) (65.213.85.218) Time to kick phyper's tires... The current version has very serious cancellation issues. For example, if you ask for a small right-tail you are likely to get total cancellation. For example phyper(59, 150, 150, 60, FALSE, FALSE) gives 6.372680161e-14. The right answer is dhyper(0, 150, 150, 60,

Here's a contribution from Ian Smith that got bounced from the list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rd] pt inaccurate when x is close to 0 (PR#9945) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:02:43 -0400 From: iandjmsmith at aol.com To: murdoch at stats.uwo.ca Duncan, I tried sending the rest of this to R-devel but it was rejected as spam, hence the personal e-mail. R calculates the pt

Full_Name: Morten Welinder Version: 1.5.1 OS: Solaris Submission from: (NULL) (65.213.85.136) I was having problems with qgamma's precision in the sense that pgamma(qpgamma(x)) was not as close to the identity function as I would like. I was seeing relative errors with random input of about 1e-8. This fits nicely with the code'd EPS2 value of 5e-7. To solve this I added a newton step

Full_Name: M. Welinder Version: 1.8.1 OS: Solaris Submission from: (NULL) (65.213.85.227) Currently R has... #define R_D_Lval(p) (lower_tail ? (p) : (1 - (p))) /* p */ #define R_D_val(x) (log_p ? log(x) : (x)) /* x in pF(x,..) */ #define R_DT_val(x) R_D_val(R_D_Lval(x)) /* x in pF */ ...which is sub-optimal in the lower_tail==FALSE && log_p==TRUE case. Something like this ought

Kenneth Cabrera <krcabrer@epm.net.co> writes: > Hello developers and users: > > My system fails (the computer freezes) when I use the ncp parameter, > with the lower.tail=FALSE option in the qchisq function. > > qchisq(0.025,31,ncp=1,lower.tail=FALSE) Yup, that's a bug. We have in pnchisq.c 48 for (ux = 1.0; pnchisq(ux, n, lambda, lower_tail, log_p) <

>>>>> "PD" == p dalgaard <p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk> writes: PD> Kenneth Cabrera <krcabrer@epm.net.co> writes: >> Hello developers and users: >> >> My system fails (the computer freezes) when I use the ncp parameter, >> with the lower.tail=FALSE option in the qchisq function. >> >>

>>>>> peter dalgaard >>>>> on Sun, 8 Dec 2019 12:11:50 +0100 writes: > Yes, that looks like a bug and an easily fixable one too. agreed. > However, I spy another issue: Why do we check the > !R_FINITE(x) && mu == x before checking for sd < 0 ? The > difference is whether we > return ML_NAN; or ML_ERR_return_NAN;

Yes, that looks like a bug and an easily fixable one too. However, I spy another issue: Why do we check the !R_FINITE(x) && mu == x before checking for sd < 0 ? The difference is whether we return ML_NAN; or ML_ERR_return_NAN; but surely negative sd should always be an error? I'd be inclined to do if (sigma < 0) ML_ERR_return_NAN; if(!R_FINITE(sigma)) return R_D__0;

Full_Name: M Welinder Version: 1.4 OS: (src) Submission from: (NULL) (192.5.35.38) It seems to me that pweibull can be improved in the lower_tail=TRUE and log_p=FALSE case by using expm1. Something like -expm1(-pow(x / scale, shape)), I think. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read

Full_Name: M Welinder Version: 1.4 OS: (src) Submission from: (NULL) (192.5.35.38) It seems to me that pexp can be improved in the lower_tail=TRUE and log_p=FALSE case by using expm1. Something like -expm1 (-x / scale); I think. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send

Full_Name: Morten Welinder Version: snapshot OS: Submission from: (NULL) (65.213.85.218) This should fix the remaining two 1-p cancellation issues. double l_rt = log1p (-p) * (x + 1); if (log_p) return R_DT_Clog (l_rt); else return lower_tail ? -expm1 (l_rt) : exp (l_rt);

Hello, by checking the precision of a convolution algorithm, we found the following "inexactness": We work with R Version 1.8.1 (2003-11-21) on Windows systems (NT, 2000, XP). Try the code: ## Kolmogorov distance between two methods to ## determine P(Poisson(lambda)<=x) Kolm.dist <- function(lam, eps){ x <- seq(0,qpois(1-eps, lambda=lam), by=1) max(abs(ppois(x,

Good question, I cannot speak for R's developers but I would like to provide some information on the problem. Here are the first few lines of the dnorm function located at src\nmath\dnorm.c: ``` double dnorm4(double x, double mu, double sigma, int give_log) { #ifdef IEEE_754 if (ISNAN(x) || ISNAN(mu) || ISNAN(sigma)) return x + mu + sigma; #endif if(!R_FINITE(sigma)) return R_D__0;

Full_Name: Manikandan Narayanan Version: 2.8.1 OS: Linux Submission from: (NULL) (155.91.45.231) Here is an excerpt from qpois help page (?qpois): The quantile is left continuous: 'qgeom(q, prob)' is the largest integer x such that P(X <= x) < q. I think the "qgeom" here should be "qpois" instead. Please correct this typo in ?qpois, since it's

version .62: --------------------------------------------- > ?qpois The Poisson Distribution dpois(x, lambda) ppois(q, lambda) qpois(p, lambda) rpois(n, lambda) Arguments: x: vector of (positive) quantiles. p: vector of probabilities. n: number of random values to return. lambda: vector of positive means.

Full_Name: Jerry W. Lewis Version: 2.10.1 OS: Windows XP Professional Submission from: (NULL) (198.180.131.21) In the line "The quantile is right continuous: qpois(q, lambda) is the smallest integer x such that P(X <= x) >= q." "q" is used as a probability when the Arguments section defines it to be a quantile. Also there are some representation problems where the