The average slope ?Auq? of the regression c on (u,u^2)is the most stable of our five new average slopes; in particular:
i) for method N and dicodon set 1, we get a perfect S/C split of the ?m?s? of the CI?s EVEN WHEN we plot the regressions of Auq on ALL singleton lengths for S and for C of all methods/sets/subsets, AS WELL AS when we do the same using the 12 length intervals instead of all available singleton lengths.
ii) for method N and dicodon set 2, we get an almost perfect S/C split of the ?m?s? of the CI?s EVEN WHEN we plot the regressions of Auq on ALL singleton lengths for S and for C of all methods/sets/subsets, AS WELL AS when we do the same using the 12 length intervals instead of all available singleton lengths.
And this ?stability? of Aug, coupled with my abysmal ignorance and naivete, leads me to ask the following question.
When I user Ivor Welch?s module to compute the three new regessions Ruq, Rub, and Ruqb per singleton length interval, his module allows me to specify a constant which I now default to ?1?.
So when I compute the regressions Rub and Ruq for a given singleton length L, would any possible benefit accrue from using the value of Auq for L (and, of course, the corresponding method, set, subset, and fold)?
Or is this an entirely illegitimate way to use Auq as a ?constant? when computing Rub and Rubq?
