similar to: Bug in cor.test - Spearman

Full_Name: David Simcha Version: 2.10 OS: Windows XP Home Submission from: (NULL) (173.3.208.5) > a <- c(1:10) > b <- c(1:10) > cor.test(a, b, method = "spearman", alternative = "greater", exact = TRUE) Spearman's rank correlation rho data: a and b S = 0, p-value < 2.2e-16 alternative hypothesis: true rho is greater than 0 sample estimates:

Dear HelpeRs, I have some data: "ice" <- structure(c(0.386, 0.374, 0.393, 0.425, 0.406, 0.344, 0.327, 0.288, 0.269, 0.256, 0.286, 0.298, 0.329, 0.318, 0.381, 0.381, 0.47, 0.443, 0.386, 0.342, 0.319, 0.307, 0.284, 0.326, 0.309, 0.359, 0.376, 0.416, 0.437, 0.548, 41, 56, 63, 68, 69, 65, 61, 47, 32, 24, 28, 26, 32, 40, 55, 63, 72, 72, 67, 60, 44, 40, 32, 27, 28, 33,

Dear R maintainers, R is great. Now that I have that out of the way, I believe I have encountered a bug, or at least an inconsistency, in how Spearman and Kendall rank correlations are handled. Specifically, cor() and cor.test() do not produce the same answer when the data contain NAs. cor() treats the NAs as data, while cor.test() eliminates them. The option use="complete.obs" has

Dear R developers: There is a possible bug in calculating the p-value for Spearman's rank correlation. Line 155 in file R-patched/src/library/stats/R/cor.test.R is as.double(round(q) + lower.tail), I think, it should be as.double(round(q) + 2*lower.tail), The reason is that round(q) is expected to be an even number (the S statistic), so the next feasible value is round(q)+2.

Hallo! Is there an error in cor to calculate Spearman correlation with cor if there are NA's? cor.test gives the correct result. At least there is a difference. Or am I doing something wrong??? Does anybody know something about this? a<-c(2,4,3,NA) b<-c(4,1,2,3) cor(a, b, method="spearman", use="complete.obs") # -0.9819805 cor.test(a, b,

Hello, Does anyone know if the cor function, when method = "spearman", returns a correlation coefficient corrected for any ties in the ranks of the data? I have data with quite a few ties and am thinking that I should use a calculation of the coefficient corrected for ties, but before I try and code this calculation myself, I thought I should check whether or not cor() automatically

> version _ platform i686-pc-linux-gnu arch i686 os linux-gnu system i686, linux-gnu status major 1 minor 8.1 year 2003 month 11 day 21 language R > cor( 1:3, rep(NA,3) ) # OK Error in cor(1:3, rep(NA, 3)) :

Hi, I have the following two measurements stored in mat: > print(mat) [,1] [,2] [1,] -14.80976 -265.786 [2,] -14.92417 -54.724 [3,] -13.92087 -58.912 [4,] -9.11503 -115.580 [5,] -17.05970 -278.749 [6,] -25.23313 -219.513 [7,] -19.62465 -497.873 [8,] -13.92087 -659.486 [9,] -14.24629 -131.680 [10,] -20.81758 -604.961 [11,] -15.32194 -18.735 To calculate the ranking

I posted this on R help, and a few others responded indicating they too were able to replicate the error as a function of missing data. I believe this should not be the case and hence and reporting it here. ### Code provided on R-Help by Ivar Herfindal # Simulate data testdata <- cbind.data.frame(gr=3Drep(letters[1:4], each=3D5), = aa=3Drnorm(20), bb=3Drnorm(20)) # Introduce some missingness

Hi, How can I make the cor(x, y, method="spearman") call to produce an error when the input to it (x, y) produces an error? Here is a simple example: > a <- c(0, 1, 2) > b <- c(100, 2, 4) ## error: > log(a) [1] -Inf 0.0000000 0.6931472 ## error, as expected: > cor(log(a), log(b), method="pearson") [1] NaN ## not an error any more (not expected): >

Hello to all of you, R-expeRts! I am trying to compute the cor.test for a matrix that i labelled mydata according to mydata=read.csv... then I converted my csv file into a matrix with the mydata=as.matrix(mydata) NOW, I need to get the p-values from the correlations... I can successfully get the spearman's correlation matrix with: cor(mydata, method="s",

Odd behaviour of function cor() in R-2.10.1-64bit-Unix In a dataset with 1366 patients and 244 clinical variables Spearman's Rho was calculated for some fatty acids and BMI and came over something rather odd: R seems to calculate Rho differently on 2.10.1-64bit-Unix and 2.9.0-32bit-Windows when I calculate the complete (244x244) correlation matrix and then pick out the values I am

Full_Name: Ian Wilson Version: R-1.8.0 OS: Windows (but own compilation) Submission from: (NULL) (139.133.7.38) the p-value is incorrect for cor.test using method "spearman" in R-1.8.0. This was not the case in R-1.7.1. Version R-1.8.0 on Windows > cor.test(rnorm(50),rnorm(50),method="spearman") Spearman's rank correlation rho data: rnorm(50) and rnorm(50) S

cor.test and SuppDists give me different P-values for the same Spearman's rho. Which is correct, or am I doing something wrong? > x <- c(44.4, 45.9, 41.9, 53.3, 44.7, 44.1, 50.7, 45.2, 60.1) > y <- c( 2.6, 3.1, 2.5, 5.0, 3.6, 4.0, 5.2, 2.8, 3.8) > cor.test(x,y,method="spearman") Spearman's rank correlation rho data: x and y S = 48, p-value =

Hello R gurus, I want to calculate the Spearman rho between two ranked lists. I am getting results with cor.test that differ in comparison to my own spearman function: > my.spearman function(l1, l2) { if(length(l1) != length(l2)) stop("lists must have same length") r1 <- rank(l1) r2 <- rank(l2) dsq <- sapply(r1-r2,function(x) x^2) 1 - ((6 * sum(dsq))

Hi. I am currently trying to run some Spearman correlations, and have encountered two issues. 1) When using cor.test() with a variable that includes ties, I get the "Cannot compute exact p-values with ties" error. I have read that this function now uses an asymptotic formula that allows for ties, so do not understand why I am getting this error. (I am running version 2.4.0.) I

Hi, I am not really familiar with Correlation foundations, although I read a lot. So maybe if someone kindly help me to interpret the following results. I had the following R commands: correlation <-cor( vector_CitationProximity , vector_Impact, method = "spearman", use="na.or.complete") cor_test<-cor.test(vector_CitationProximity, vector_Impact,

In the ouput below, what is the "S" statistic (S = 96) that is used for Spearman? I don't have easy access to the books cited on the help page. Other texts and web sources that I have found use t or z as a test for Spearman, perhaps inappropriately. Can anyone tell me how S is computed or refer to a web resource? I see from the code for that: q <- as.integer((n^3 - n) * (1

Dear R, I'm looking for exact p-values for Spearman's rank correlation in the presence of ties. This is available in StatXact and SPSS, but I haven't yet found it in R. Has anyone implemented this? -- Paul H Artes Assist Prof, Ophth Vis Sci Dalhousie University, QEII Eye Care Centre Halifax, NS, CANADA

Colleagues, I ran some nonparametric regressions in R (run in RedHat Linux), then a colleague repeated the analyses in SAS. When we obtained different results, I tested S-Plus (same Linux box). And, got yet different results. I replicated the results with a small dataset: DATA: 37.5 23 37.5 13 25 16 25 12 100 15 12.5 19 50 20 100 13 100 10 100 10 100 16 50 10 87.5