similar to: problem in add1's F statistic when data contains NAs?

Should the F statistic be the same when using add1() on models created by lm and glm(family=gaussian)? They are in the single-degree-of-freedom case but not in the multiple-degree-of-freedom case. MASS:addterm shows the same discrepancy. It looks like the deviance (==residual sum of squares) gets divided by the number of degrees of freedom for the term twice in add1.glm. Using anova() on the

Se ha borrado un texto insertado con un juego de caracteres sin especificar... Nombre: no disponible Url: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20070521/f7808713/attachment.pl

Hi, I'm trying to build a hierarchical logistic regression model with lme4 package, but I have a problem on selecting the variables to include in this model. In a simple logistic regression, using Forward selection, i use a likelihood ratio test to check which variables i should include in the model, using the function add1(). The problem is that this function doesn't work with the

Hi All, I am wondering if anyone can tell me what the warning message below the model means? J add1(DTA.glm,~ Aeventexhumed + Veg + Berm + HTL + Estuary + Rayos) Single term additions Model: cbind(MaxHatch, TotalEggs - MaxHatch) ~ Aeventexhumed + Veg + Berm + HTL Df Deviance AIC <none> 488.86 4232.9 Estuary 1 454.96 4201.0 Rayos 3 258.80 4008.9 Warning

I'm having a bit of difficulty using the stepwise model-building tools in a glm context. Here, for example is one problem I have had using add1, where the abbreviation "." does not work as I expected it to do. I someone could point me towards some examples involving the interactive building of glm models I would be grateful. The data set that I am using is the

Dear R Help, I have noticed some inconsistent behaviour of add1 and drop1 with a weighted linear model, which affects the interpretation of the results. I have these data to fit with a linear model, I want to weight them by the relative size of the geographical areas they represent. _________________________________________________________________________________________ > example

Hello, I have a question about the add1() function and quasilikelihoods for GLMs. I am fitting quasi-Poisson models using glm(, family = quasipoisson). Technically, with the quasilikelihood approach the deviance does not have the interpretation as a likelihood-based measure of sample information. Functions such as stepAIC() cannot be used. The function add1() returns the change in the scaled

Dear R People: Here is a goofy question: I want to extract the zip code from an address and here is my work so far: > add1 results.formatted_address "200 W Rosamond St, Houston, TX 77076, USA" > add1[1][32:36] <NA> <NA> <NA> <NA> <NA> NA NA NA NA NA > str(add1) Named chr "200 W Rosamond St, Houston, TX 77076,

In trying to streamline various optimization functions, I would like to have a scratch pad of working data that is shared across a number of functions. These can be called from different levels within some wrapper functions for maximum likelihood and other such computations. I'm sure there are other applications that could benefit from this. Below are two approaches. One uses the <<-

Does R have a function like the S/S++ unset() function? unset(name) would remove 'name' from the current evaluation frame and return its value. It allowed you to safely avoid some memory copying when calling .C or .Call. E.g., suppose you had C code like #include <R.h> #include <Rinternals.h> SEXP add1(SEXP pX) { int nProtected = 0; int n = Rf_length(pX);

Hi, I am investigating a performance degradation between llvm-3.1 and llvm-3.2 (Note: current top-of-tree shows a similar degradation) One issue I see is the following: - 'loop invariant code motion' seems to be depending on the result of the 'reassociate expression' pass: In the samples below I observer the following behavior: Both start with the same expression: %add = add

Reid wrote: > I have to agree with Misha on this. None of us knows "everything" about > LLVM and as you can see, Misha responded three hours before I did :). > Asking questions here is encouraged, so please feel free to post them on > LLVMdev. We'll always help where we can. well, OK :) Please find the attachment with the first approach to such an example i've

It's an interesting problem. The best stuff I've seen published is by Cooper, Eckhart, & Kennedy, in PACT '08. Cooper gives a nice intro in one of his lectures: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/512/2012/Lectures/26ReassocII-1up.pdf I can't tell, quickly, what's going on in Reassociate; as usual, the documentation resolutely avoids giving any credit for the ideas. Why is that?

Valery, I have to agree with Misha on this. None of us knows "everything" about LLVM and as you can see, Misha responded three hours before I did :). Asking questions here is encouraged, so please feel free to post them on LLVMdev. We'll always help where we can. Thanks, Reid. On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 06:37, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 12:32:33PM +0400, Valery

Valery, Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, "reid.cpp" which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and "diffs" which shows the differences between them. The differences should be instructive on what to do. You were really, really close .. just a few details changing. The code in "reid.cpp" compiles but I

Hi, I am not able to understand the No Signed Wrap property. My problem is in the Instruction combiner which combines two operations - add1 = add 'nsw' x 5 add2 = add 'nsw' add1 1 into add2 = add x 6. // No 'nsw' property in the combined operation. >From the comments in the Instruction Combiner I can see that the nsw flag / property is "conservatively

As far as I can understand of the code, the Reassociate tries to achieve this result by its "ranking" mechanism. If it dose not, it is not hard to achieve this result, just restructure the expression in a way such that the earlier definition of the sub-expression is permute earlier in the resulting expr. e.g. outer-loop1 x= outer-loop2 y =

On Apr 25, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > It's an interesting problem. > The best stuff I've seen published is by Cooper, Eckhart, & Kennedy, in PACT '08. > Cooper gives a nice intro in one of his lectures: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/512/2012/Lectures/26ReassocII-1up.pdf > I can't tell, quickly, what's going on

Reid Spencer, thank you for your quick responce, finally i got to my PC at home. You wrote: > Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, > "reid.cpp" which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and > "diffs" which shows the differences between them. The differences > should be instructive on what to do. You were

Hello, I am trying to figure out, what vrp propagation does in llvm. I tried this program: #include <stdio.h> int main() { int s = 0; int j = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { j = j+i+1; s+=j; } return (s+j); } And got this under optimized version ( I don't want everything to be eliminated) define i32 @main()