similar to: getting more than the coefficients

Hi, I am trying to estimate the effects of covariates on the hazard function, rather than on the survival. I know this is actually the same thing. For example, using the survival package, and doing: > myfit <- survreg( Surv(time, event) ~ mymodel ) all I have to do to get the quantities of my interest is > -myfit$coefficients/myfit$scale The standard erros are easily worked out, as

Philipp Benner reported a Debian bug report against r-cran-rpart aka rpart. In short, the issue has to do with how rpart evaluates a formula and supporting arguments, in particular 'weights'. A simple contrived example is ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- library(rpart) ## using data from help(rpart), set up simple example myformula <-

> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Manoranjan Muthusamy <ranjanmano167 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I am using nlsLM {minpack.lm} to find the values of parameters a and b of > function myfun which give the best fit for the data set, mydata. > > mydata=data.frame(x=c(0,5,9,13,17,20),y = c(0,11,20,29,38,45)) > > myfun=function(a,b,r,t){ > prd=a*b*(1-exp(-b*r*t)) >

I ran the following script. I satisfied the constraint by making a*b a single parameter, which isn't always possible. I also ran nlxb() from nlsr package, and this gives singular values of the Jacobian. In the unconstrained case, the svs are pretty awful, and I wouldn't trust the results as a model, though the minimum is probably OK. The constrained result has a much larger sum of squares.

Hi, I am passing a data frame and field name to a function. I've figured out how I can create the formula based on the passed in field name, but I'm struggling to create a vector based in that field. for example if I hard code with the actual field name Y = df$Target, everything works fine. but if I use the passed in parameter name, it doesn't give me what I want, Y =

Dear All, I have a question about formulas and model.matrix(). If one specifies a model via a formula, the corresponding design matrix can be obtained with the model.matrix() function. For example: x1 <- c(1,4,2,3,5) x2 <- c(1,1,2,2,2) myformula <- ~ x1 + factor(x2) model.matrix(myformula) My question is: If an intercept term is in the model (like in the example above), is it always

https://cran.r-project.org/web/views/Optimization.html (Cran's optimization task view -- as always, you should search before posting) In general, nonlinear optimization with nonlinear constraints is hard, and the strategy used here (multiplying by a*b < 1000) may not work -- it introduces a discontinuity into the objective function, so gradient based methods may in particular be

Hi everyone, Can someone please help me in these questions?: 1)if I use crossvalidation with svm, do I have to use this equation to calculate RMSE?: mymodel <- svm(myformula,data=mydata,cross=10) sqrt(mean(mymodel$MSE)) But if I don’t use crossvalidation, I have to use the following to calculate RMSE: mymodel <- svm(myformula,data=mydata) mytest

Hi, I am passing a data frame and field name to a function. I've figured out how I can create the formula based on the passed in field name, but I'm struggling to create a vector based in that field. for example if I hard code with the actual field name Y = df$Target, everything works fine. but if I use the passed in parameter name, it doesn't give me what I want, Y = df$mytarget

I'm drawing a fitted normal distribution over a histogram. The use case is trivial (fitting normal distributions on densities) but I want to extend it to other fitting scenarios. What has stumped me so far is how to take the list that is returned by nls() and use it for curve(). I realize that I can easily do all of this with a few intermediate steps for any specific case. But I had expected

I've seen a number of problems like this over the years. The fact that the singular values of the Jacobian have a ration larger than the usual convergence tolerances can mean the codes stop well before the best fit. That is the "numerical analyst" view. David and Jeff have given geometric and statistical arguments. All views are useful, but it takes some time to sort them all out and

I haven't followed your example closely, but can't you use the predict() method for this? To draw a curve, the function that will be used in curve() sets up a newdata dataframe and passes it to predict(fit, newdata= ...) to get predictions at those locations. Duncan Murdoch On 17/10/2020 5:27 a.m., Boris Steipe wrote: > I'm drawing a fitted normal distribution over a

I am not as expert as John, but I thought it worth pointing out that the variable substitution technique gives up one set of constraints for another (b=0 in this case). I also find that plots help me see what is going on, so here is my reproducible example (note inclusion of library calls for completeness). Note that NONE of the optimizers mentioned so far appear to be finding the true best

Hi, I have problem getting the standard deviation from the manova output. I have used the manova function: myfit <- manova(cbind(y1, y2) ~ x1 + x2 + x3, data=mydata) . I tried to get the predicted values and their standard deviation by using: predict(myfit, type="response", se.fit=TRUE) But the problem is that I don't get the standard deviation values, I only

Hi, x and y are (numeric) vectors. I wonder if one of the following is more efficient than the other: x%*%y or sum(x*y) ? Thanks, Dimitri Szerman

Hi all, Can anyone who is familar with CART tell me what I missed in my tree code? library (MASS) myfit <- tree (y ~ x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 ) # tree.screens () # useless plot(myfit); text (myfit, all= TRUE, cex=0.5, pretty=0) # tile.tree (myfit, fgl$type) # useless # close.screen (all= TRUE) # useless My current tree plot resulted from above code shows as:

Dear List, I think I'm going crazy here...can anyone explain why do I get the same predictions in train and test data sets below when the second has a missing input? y <- rnorm(1000) x1 <- rnorm(1000) x2 <- rnorm(1000) train <- data.frame(y,x1,x2) test <- data.frame(x1) myfit <- glm(y ~ x1 + x2, data=train) summary(myfit) all(predict(myfit, test) == predict(myfit, train))

Hi R-Helpers: I?m trying to fit the same linear model to a bunch of variables in a data frame, so I was trying to adapt the codes John Fox, Spencer Graves and Peter Dalgaard proposed and discused yesterday on this e-mail list: for (y in df[, 3:5]) { mod = lm(y ~ Trt*Dose, data = x, contrasts = list(Trt = contr.sum, Dose = contr.sum)) Anova(mod, type = "III") } ## by John Fox or for

Hi there, I am trying to compute Gini coefficients for vectors containing income classes. The data I possess look loke this: yit <- c(135, 164, 234, 369) piit <- c(367, 884, 341, 74 ) where yit is the vector of income classes, and fit is the vector of associated frequencies.(This data is from Rustichini, Ichino and Checci (Journal of Public Economics, 1999) ). In ineq pacakge, Gini( )

Hello R users, A beginners question which I could not find the answer to in earler posts. My thought process: Here "z" is a 119 x 15 data matrix Step 1: start at column one, bind every column with column 1 Step2: use the new matrix, "test", in the fitCopula package Step3: store each result in myfit, bind each result to "answer" Step4: return "answer"