Date: Dec 5, 2012 12:18 AM
Author: Halitsky
Subject: One other question about using Auq avg slope as a constant when<br> computing the other two regressions

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.