|
|
OK then, how ‘bout “hetness”? Are you amenabl
e to its further investigation?
Posted:
Dec 11, 2012 10:12 PM
|
|
To date, the only results we have that are both ?good? and fully cross-
fold are the ?het?-related results:
a1 a3 b1 b47 c1 c2
C S C S c S c S C S C S
Het
1N Aubqe H H L L H H H H L L L L 0
3N Aubqe L L H H L L H H H H L L 0
LH-Het
3N Aubqu L H H H H H L H L H L H 4
HL-Het
1N CVubq H L H L H L H L H L H L 6
2N CVubq H L H L H L H L H L H L 6
where Aubqe is the average slope of e in regression Rubq = c on
(e,u,u*e,u^2)
Aubqu is the average slope of u in regression Rubq = c on
(e,u,u*e,u^2)
CVubq is the covar of e and u in regression Rubq = c on
(e,u,u*emu^2(
These results are ?good? not only because:
a) your MonteCarlo-ing indicated p?s for Het=0, LH-Het= 4, HL-Het=6
of .022, .049, and .001 respectively;
but also because:
b) no set x MoSS combination involving MoSS=R exhibits a value for
Het, LH-Het, or HL-het with an associated probability of < .05.
And therefore, the three flavors of ?hetness? can certainly be said to
successfully distinguish our non-random dicodon subsets from our
random dicodon subsets (an outcome we have not been able to achieve
ACROSS ALL FOLDS via computation of 2-ways or Q-associated p?s etc.)
On the other hand, you?ve expressed two kinds of reservations about
?hetness?:
c) it involves a dichotomization of slopes obtained when Aubqe or
Aubqu or CVubq is regressed on length;
d) you yourself have no intuition at all about what CVubq might
actually ?mean, and only a vague intuition about what Aubqe or Aubqu
might actually ?mean?.
So, given these reservations, are you amenable to further
investigation of ?hetness?, or is that somewhere you don?t
particularly want to go?
Thanks as always for considering this question, and please forgive the
apparent "numerology". (I should have introduced the matter in the
context of local properties of surfaces in the neighborhoods of
different points ... standard differential geometry.)
|
|
