Hi, just started reading your book - impressive work. Do you have a place for reporting errors etc. specifically for the book? I would probably expect that the test below (Chapter 4) was for ratios being equal to 1, but it appears that tests are for ratios being 0. Am I missing a point here? - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

uffeheide.bsky.social • 18 days ago

Hi, just started reading your book - impressive work. Do you have a place for reporting errors etc. specifically for the book?

I would probably expect that the test below (Chapter 4) was for ratios being equal to 1, but it appears that tests are for ratios being 0. Am I missing a point here?

Comments

vincentab.bsky.social•18 days ago

Thanks! I *really* appreciate bug reports. Github is usually better because I sometimes miss/forget social media.

I agree that 1 is a better default w/ `hypothesis=ratio ~.`

The default is changed in version 0.25.1.7 on Github. The new version will be published to CRAN in the next few weeks.

uffeheide.bsky.social•18 days ago

Thank you for the swift reply - at first I did not realize how close the book and the package (and by extension the github page) are to eachother, but it makes sense to have it all in one place. I will report there if I find anything else :)

uffeheide.bsky.social•18 days ago

In the same chapter there is also a 95% CI for a ratio going below 0 - is that a bug or a feature?

vincentab.bsky.social•18 days ago

This can happen sometimes because 95% CIs are built symmetrically: [B-1.96*SE, B+1.96*SE]. In predictions() we use backtransformation to avoid this issue, but that strategy is not available/straightforward everywhere.

vincentab.bsky.social•18 days ago

Some people think it's fine to truncate symmetric delta method CIs, but that's obv a hack. Using inferences() to bootstrap or simulate CIs is an alternative.

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply