similar to: test for existance of a method for given class

Hi. I'm using lmer() from the lme4 package (version 0.8-3) and I can't get anova() to group variables properly. I'm fitting the mixed model Response ~ Weight + Experimenter + (1|SUBJECT.NAME) + (1|Date.StudyDay) where Weight is numeric and Experimenter is a factor, ie, > str(data.df) `data.frame': 4266 obs. of 5 variables: $ SUBJECT.NAME : Factor w/ 2133 levels

Dear All, Is there is a fast way of refitting lm() when the design matrix stays constant but the response is different? For example, y1 ~ X y2 ~ X y3 ~ X ...etc. where y1 is the 1st instance of the response vector. Calling lm() every time seems rather wasteful since the QR-decomposition of X needs to be calculated only once. It would be nice if qr() was called only once and then the same

Dear All, I have been trying to simulate data from a fitted glm using the simulate() function (version details at the bottom). This works for lm() fits and even for lmer() fits (in lme4). However, for glm() fits its output does not make sense to me -- am I missing something or is this a bug? Consider the following count data, modelled as gaussian, poisson and binomial responses: counts

Dear All, I wish to model random effects that have known between-group covariance structure using the lme() function from library nlme. However, I have yet to get even a simple example to work. No doubt this is because I am confusing my syntax, but I would appreciate any guidance as to how. I have studied Pinheiro & Bates carefully (though it's always possible I've missed

Dear R help, I've encountered a problem with survreg's anova(). I am currently writing general code to fit a variety of models using different fitting functions. Here's a simple example of what I'm trying to do: ---begin code--- # general function to analyse data analyse.data <- function(formula, FUN, data, ...) { fit <- FUN(formula, data=data, ...) anova(fit)

Dear list, I was wondering how to best implement some sort of a "plugin" paradigm using R methods and the dispatcher: Say we have a function/method ('foo') that does something useful, but that should be open for extension in ONE specific area by OTHERS using my package. Of course they could go ahead and write a whole new 'foo' method including the features they'd

# Your mailer is set to "none" (default on Windows), # hence we cannot send the bug report directly from R. # Please copy the bug report (after finishing it) to # your favorite email program and send it to # # r-bugs@r-project.org # ###################################################### 1. as.numeric behaves differently in R than in S and I think this shows a bug in how S3

Hola. En mi caso, no he podido resolver los problemas con el Java para usar XLConnect, que en los papeles me parece el mejor. Supongo que algo de la arquitectura del sistema o bien de la relación entre el Java, el R y el RStudio. Así que utilizo library(openxlsx) write.xlsx(datos, file = "EDA1.xlsx") #donde datos es el objeto que quiero guardar. Requiere instalar el RTools, según tipo y

Christoph -- There was just a thread on this earlier this week. You can search in the archives for the title: "refitting lm() with same x, different y". (Actually, it doesn't turn up in the R site search yet, at least for me. But if you just go to the archive of recent messages, available through CRAN, you can search on refitting and find it. The original post was from William

Dear all, I would like to get glm() return its results (at least the deviance) for some given parameter values (ie without actually fitting the model). I tried to set `maxit = 0' but this does not work, eg: > glm(y ~ x, start = c(1, 1), maxit = 0) Error in glm.control(...) : maximum number of iterations must be > 0 Any idea? Thanks in advance. Emmanuel Paradis

Hi the devel list. I am adapting the package.skeleton to S4 classes and methods I would have been very proud to post a new working function on this list. Unfortunately, I do not manage to solve all the problems. Mainly - sys.source does not compile a file with setClass - dumpMethod does not exists yet In the following code, thise two problems are notified by a line ################# Still

Hi ! This is Madhavi from Mumbai, India. Incidently this is my first post. I am working on Credit Scoring Model and using R, I have run the logistic regression. I have received following Output. I have two questions (a) What is the significance of "family = binomial(link = logit)". Why do I have to mention Binomial? Is it because my dependent variable assumes only two values 0 and 1?

Hi everyone, I'm sorry if this turns out to be more a statistical question than one specifically about R - but would greatly appreciate your advice anyway. I've been using a logistic regression model to look at the relationship between a binary outcome (say, the odds of picking n white balls from a bag containing m balls in total) and a variety of other binary parameters:

A maybe trivial and stupid question: In the case of a lm or glm fit, it is quite informative (to me) to have a look to the null deviance and the residual deviance of a model. This is generally provided in the print method or the summary, eg: Null Deviance: 658.8 Residual Deviance: 507.3 and (a bit simpled minded) I like to think that the proportion of deviance 'explained' by the

Dear R users, I read your methods of extracting the variance explained by each predictor in different places. My question is: using the method you suggested, the sum of the deviance explained by all terms is not equal to the deviance explained by the full model. Could you tell me what caused such problem? > set.seed(0) > n<-400 > x1 <- runif(n, 0, 1) > ## to see problem

Dear all, I am using gamlss (Package gamlss version 4.0-0, R version 2.10.1, Windows XP Service Pack 3 on a HP EliteBook) to relate bird counts to habit variables. However, most models fail because “the global deviance is increasing” and I am not sure what causes this behaviour. The dataset consists of counts of birds (duck) and 5 habit variables measured in the field (n= 182). The dependent

Hello fellow R's, I do apologize if this is a basic question. I'm doing some GAMs using the mgcv package, and I am wondering what is the most appropriate way to determine how much of the variability in the dependent variable is explained by each term in the model. The information provided by summary.gam() relates to the significance of each term (F, p-value) and to the

System: R 2.3.1 on Windows XP machine. I am building a logistic regression model for a sample of 100 cases in dataframe "d", in which there are 3 binary covariates: x1, x2 and x3. ---------------- > summary(d) y x1 x2 x3 0:54 0:50 0:64 0:78 1:46 1:50 1:36 1:22 > fit <- glm(y ~ x1 + x2 + x3, data=d, family=binomial(link=logit)) >

Hi, I was wondering why anova() and drop1() give different tail probabilities for F tests. I guess overdispersion is calculated differently in the following example, but why? Thanks for any advice, Tom For example: > x<-c(2,3,4,5,6) > y<-c(0,1,0,0,1) > b1<-glm(y~x,binomial) > b2<-glm(y~1,binomial) > drop1(b1,test="F") Single term deletions Model: y ~

Hello, I was trying a glm fitting (as shown below) and I got a warning and a fitted residual deviance larger than the null deviance. Is this the expected behavor of glm? I would expect that even though the warning might be warranted I should not get worse fitting with an additional covariate in the model. Could anyone tell me what I'm missing? I get the same results in both R2.5.1 on windows