similar to: standardized residuals (rstandard & plot.lm) (PR#8367)

This bug is not quite fixed - the example from my original report now = works using R-2.2.1, but plot(Uniform, 6) does not. The bug is due to if (show[6]) { ymx <- max(cook, na.rm =3D TRUE) * 1.025 g <- hatval/(1 - hatval) # Potential division by zero here # plot(g, cook, xlim =3D c(0, max(g)), ylim =3D c(0, ymx),=20 main =3D main, xlab =3D

I contacted John Fox about this first, because parts of the file are attributed to him. He says that he didn't write rstandard.glm(), and suggests asking r-devel. As it stands, rstandard.glm() has summary(model)$dispersion outside the sqrt(), while in rstandard.lm(), the sd is already sqrt()ed. This seems to follow stdres() in VR/MASS/R/stdres.R. Of course for the c("poisson",

Hi Hemant, Here is an example that might answer your questions. Please don't run previous code as it might not work. I define the break values as arguments to the function (rbreaks,fbreaks,mbreaks) If you want the breaks to work, make sure that they cover the range of the input values, otherwise you get NAs. # expects a three (or more) column data frame where # column 1 is customer ID,

I'm getting all the rows as NA in Cscore and almost most of the observation in R and F and M are also NA. what can be the reason for this. also suggest me the appropriate solution. On 9 October 2017 at 15:51, Jim Lemon <drjimlemon at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Hemant, > Here is an example that might answer your questions. Please don't run > previous code as it might not work.

I seriously doubt that you are running the code I sent. What you have probably done is to run your data, which has a different date format, without changing the breaks or the date format arguments. As you haven't provided any example that shows what you are doing, I can't guess what the problem is. Jim On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Hemant Sain <hemantsain55 at gmail.com> wrote:

Is there any reason that rstandard.glm doesn't have a "pearson" option? And if not, can it be added? Background: I'm currently teaching an undergrad/grad-service course from Agresti's "Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis (2nd edn)" and deviance residuals are not used in the text. For now I'll just provide the students with a simple function to use, but I

Hello Jim, i have converted all my variable data type according to your attached example including date, and my dataset looks like this. ID purchase date 1234 10.2 2017-02-18 3453 18.9 2017-03-22 7689 8 2017-03-24 but when I'm passing the data

Dear all, the application of the function rstandard() in the base package to a glm object does not produce residuals standardized to have variance one: the reason is that the deviance residuals are divided by the dispersion estimate and not by the square root of the estimate for the dispersion. Should the function not be changed to produce residuals with a variance about 1? R 1.8.1 on

Hi Hemant, Let's take it one step at a time. Save this code as "qdrfm.R" in your R working directory: It includes the comments I added last time and fixes a bug in the recency scoring. qdrfm<-function(x,rbreaks=3,fbreaks=3,mbreaks=3, date.format="%Y-%m-%d",weights=c(1,1,1),finish=NA) { # if no finish date is specified, use current date if(is.na(finish))

I'm trying to perform an RFM analysis on the attached dataset, I'm able to get the results using the auto_rfm function but i want to define my own breaks for RFM. as follow r <-c(30,60,90) f <-c(2,5,8) m <-c(10,20,30) but when i tried to define my own breaks i got the identical result for RFM i.e 111 for every ID. please help me with this with working R script so that i can get

Dear all, can somebody give me some pointer how I can fit a "linear-by-linear association model" (i.e. loglinear model for the ordinal variables) in R? A brief description can be found here 'https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat504/node/141'. Thanks for your help

I'm trying to write some functions extending influence measures to multivariate linear models and also allow subsets of size m>=1 to be considered for deletion diagnostics. I'd like these to work roughly parallel to those functions for the univariate lm where only single case deletion (m=1) diagnostics are considered. Corresponding to stats::hatvalues.lm, the S3 method for class

Hi guys, I want to transfer the following code from R into .Call compatible form. How can i do that? Thanks!!! INT sim; for(i in 1:sim){ if(i>2) genemat <- genemat[,sample(1:ncol(genemat))] ranklist[,1] <- apply(genemat, 1, function(x){ (mean(x[cols]) - mean(x[-cols]))/sd(x)}) ranklist <- ranklist[order(ranklist[,1]),]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've been looking fairly carefully at the Q-Q plots produced by plot.lm() and am having difficulty understanding why plot.lm() is doing what it's doing, specifically scaling the standardized residuals by the prior weights. Can anyone explain this to me ... ? Multiplying by the weights seems to give the wrong plot, at least for binomial

Hi, I have been struggling with this problem for some time now. Internet, books haven't been able to help me. ## I have factorial design with counts (fruits) as response variable. > str(stubb) 'data.frame': 334 obs. of 5 variables: $ id : int 6 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 34 ... $ infl.treat : Factor w/ 2 levels "0","1": 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 ... $ def.treat :

Hi, I have the following code from Splus that I'd like to migrate to R. So far, the only problem is the arima.filt function. This function allows me to filter an existing time-series through a previously estimated arima model, and obtain the residuals for further use. Here's the Splus code: # x is the estimation time series, new.infl is a timeseries that contains new information # a.mle

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

In Venables \& Ripley 3rd edition (p. 231) the proportional odds model is described as: logit(p<=k) = zeta_k + eta but polr apparently thinks there is a minus in front of eta, as is apprent below. Is this a bug og a feature I have overlooked? Here is the naked code for reproduction, below the results. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- version

Hi, I am trying to test the proportional-odds model using the "polr" function in the MASS library with the dataset of "housing" contained in the MASS book ("Sat" (factor: low, medium, high) is the dependent variable, "Infl" (low, medium, high), "Type" (tower, apartment, atrium, terrace) and "Cont" (low, high) are the predictor variables

Hi all, I'm trying to apply loess regression to my data and then use the fitted model to get the *standardized/studentized residuals. I understood that for linear regression (lm) there are functions to do that:* * * fit1 = lm(y~x) stdres.fit1 = rstandard(fit1) studres.fit1 = rstudent(fit1) I was wondering if there is an equally simple way to get the standardized/studentized residuals for a