similar to: wilcox.exact function (PR#8856)

Hi, In the exactRankTest package, I've become aware that you can get anomalous p-values (i.e., above 1) from the wilcox.exact method, as in: > wilcox.exact(c(-0.6,0.8,-0.5)) Exact Wilcoxon signed rank test data: c(-0.6, 0.8, -0.5) V = 3, p-value = 1.25 alternative hypothesis: true mu is not equal to 0 This is disturbing. Has anyone encountered this before, and if so

Does anyone know why wilcox.exact gives W-statistic 6 instead of 12 as indicated below. 12 is the rank sum of group 0 of x, which is the linear statistic computed by wilcox_test. y<-c(1,2,3,4,5) x<-c(1,1,0,0,0) (a) wilcox.exact wilcox.exact(y~x) Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test data: y by x W = 6, p-value = 0.2 alternative hypothesis: true mu is not equal to 0 (b) wilcox_test

hi, when performing a wilcox.test or a wilcox.exact i get results that looks like this: wilcox.exact(x, mu=.5) Exact Wilcoxon signed rank test data: x V = 207, p-value = 0.0006905 alternative hypothesis: true mu is not equal to 0.5 the way i understand the wilcox.test (or wilcox.exact) the V-value represents the summed up ranks of either the positive or negative differences,

Dear R friends, here I write again about the wilcox.exact() problem. I want to compare two sets of categorical data, and in one case it says "negative length vectors not allowed", and in the other one I get the error "cannot allocate vector of length ...". On http://rapidshare.com/files/298621893/wilcox.exact_trouble.Rdata.html you can download the data that cause the

The point estimates produced by wilcox.test are perverse (not wrong, just brain damaged). The Hodges-Lehmann estimator that goes with the signed rank test is the median of the Walsh averages. The Hodges-Lehmann estimator that goes with the rank sum test is the median of the pairwise differences. wilcox.test agrees except that it uses the following very peculiar definition of "sample

Dear List, after updating the exactRanksumTests package I receive a warning that the package is not developed any further and that one should consider the coin package. I don't find the signed rank test in the coin package, only the Wilcoxon Mann Whitney U-Test. I only found a signed rank test in the stats package (wilcox.test) which is able to calculate the exact pvalues but unfortunately

This is my first post to the mailing list and I guess it's a pretty stupid question but I can't figure it out. I hope this is the right forum for these kind of questions. Before I started using R I was using STATA to run a Wilcoxon signed-rank test on two variables. See data below:

Dear R friends, I want to compare two datasets and I get the message Error in .Call("cpermdist2", ma = as.integer(m), mb = as.integer(col), : negative length vectors are not allowed after specifying the exact test. I'm using the exactRankTests package. Do you suggest me using the coin library, or is there anything "wrong" with my data? Kind regards, David --

Full_Name: David Wooff Version: 1.7.0 OS: i686-pc-linux-gnu Submission from: (NULL) (129.234.4.10) wilcox.test exits with error message when confidence interval required, under some situations. I suspect this occurs when the data contain a zero and for some data lengths only: print(wilcox.test(c(2,1,4,3,6,-5,0),conf.int=T)) fails print(wilcox.test(c(2,1,4,3,6,-5,0,1),conf.int=T)) works

hi, i am looking for a way to correct for ties in the wilcoxon signed rank test -> e.g. wilcox.test(x,mu=.5) one way i have heard of is to look up the p value in a table that has been produced by Buck (1975). obviously i need to know the T-value to do that -> how do i get the T-value from the wilcox.test() function. is there any other (already implemented) way to correct for ties in

Hello, Writing to share some things I've found about wilcox.test() that seem a a bit inconsistent. 1. Inf values are not removed if paired=TRUE # returns different results (Inf is removed): wilcox.test(c(1,2,3,4), c(0,9,8,7)) wilcox.test(c(1,2,3,4), c(0,9,8,Inf)) # returns the same result (Inf is left as value with highest rank): wilcox.test(c(1,2,3,4), c(0,9,8,7), paired=TRUE)

Hi, Two functions wilcox.exact and wilcox_test give slightly different confidence intervals of the difference of the medians: for example y<-c(0,0,1.081,0.594,0,0.769,0,0.009,0,0,0.798,0.405,0.498,0.946,1.35,1.149,0.528) x<-c(rep(1,10),rep(2,7)) aa<-wilcox.exact(y~x,conf.int=TRUE) bb<-wilcox_test(y~factor(x),distribution="exact",conf.int=TRUE) aa bb Does anyone know

There is a fairly new bug in wilcox.test in R-2.2.1 (stable). It wasn't there when I last taught nonparametrics in fall 2003. Line 86 of wilcox.test.R achieved.alpha<-2*psignrank(trunc(qu),n) It should be achieved.alpha<-2*psignrank(trunc(qu)-1,n) If you don't see why, decode the cookbook instructions p. 56 in Hollander and Wolfe (2nd ed.) or see

I have a question concerning the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and specifically, which R subroutine I should use for my particular dataset. There are three different commands in R (that I'm aware of) that calculate the Wilcoxon signed-rank test; wilcox.test, wilcox.exact, and wilcoxsign_test. When I run the three commands on the same dataset, I get different p-values. I'm hoping that

Hi, I am very confused with constructing the wilcox.test in R. I have two populations 'original' and 'test'. I want to know if the 'test' is generally 'lower' than original. I use alpha of 0.05. So do I write the function as wilcox.test(original, test, alternative="l")? or wlcox.test(original, test, alternative = "g")? or wilcox.test(test,

Thank you for a fast response. Nice to see this mailing list being so alive. Regarding Inf issue: I agree with your assessment that Inf should not be removed. The code gave me an impression that Inf values were intentionally removed (since is.finite() was used everywhere, except for paired case). I will try to adjust my patch according to your feedback. One more thing: it seems like you

>>>>> Karolis Koncevi?ius >>>>> on Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:43:36 +0200 writes: > So I tried adding Infinity support for all cases. > And it is (as could be expected) more complicated than I thought. "Of course !" Thank you, Karolis, in any case! > It is easy to add Inf support for the test. The problems start with conf.int=TRUE.

I get these BIZARRE results from wilcox.test() When INCREASING the number of samples i get INCREASED p-values. When increasing the number of samples further, the p-values goes down again. This seems really bizarre! Can anyone explain why this is so?! Example: > w <- wilcox.test(c(1:40),(c(1:40)+100)) > w$p.value [1] 1.860340e-23 > w <- wilcox.test(c(1:50),(c(1:50)+100)) >

Given the following data, and hypothesized median M.0 I've found a method to implement the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Data: (with one zero difference and tied ranks) x <- c(136, 103, 91, 122, 96, 145, 140, 138, 126, 120, 99, 125, 91,142, 119, 137) M.0 <- 119 > library(exactRankTests) Package ?exactRankTests? is no longer under development. Please consider using package ?coin?

Hi, Could anyone provide the formula of the statistics which the wilcox.test used for the two-sample rank-sum test? I got some statistics of 0 values, but it is impossible to have 0 "rank-sum". Does the function use the Mann-Whitney U test statistics? Thanks. Ting-Yuan Liu