|
|
Re: One other question about using Auq avg slope as a constant when
computing the other two regressions
Posted:
Dec 5, 2012 1:11 AM
|
|
On Dec 4, 9:18 pm, djh <halitsk...@att.net> wrote:
> 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?
>
> Thanks as always for considering this question.
What is the constant supposed to do or be?
How does it fit into the regression equation?
|
|
