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.