On 21/03/2009, at 3:19 AM, Ravi Varadhan wrote:
snip
I also tried a number of other things including changing the
family, and parameters in
loess.control, but to no avail. I looked at the Fortran codes
from both loess and gam.
They are daunting, to say the least. They are dense,
of Medicine
Johns Hopkins University
Ph. (410) 502-2619
email: rvarad...@jhmi.edu
- Original Message -
From: Kevin E. Thorpe kevin.tho...@utoronto.ca
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:23 pm
Subject: Re: [R] Difference between gam() and loess().
To: Rolf Turner r.tur...@auckland.ac.nz
Cc: R-help
Subject: Re: [R] Difference between gam() and loess().
To: Rolf Turner r.tur...@auckland.ac.nz
Cc: R-help Forum r-help@r-project.org
Rolf Turner wrote:
It seems that in general
gam(y~lo(x)) # gam() from the gam package.
and
loess(y~x)
give slightly different results
at the Fortran.
I guess one simple parameter change may not quite do it. :-)
Kevin
- Original Message -
From: Kevin E. Thorpe kevin.tho...@utoronto.ca
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:23 pm
Subject: Re: [R] Difference between gam() and loess().
To: Rolf Turner r.tur
It seems that in general
gam(y~lo(x)) # gam() from the gam package.
and
loess(y~x)
give slightly different results (in respect of the predicted/fitted
values).
Most noticeable at the endpoints of the range of x.
Can anyone enlighten me about the reason for this difference?
Rolf Turner wrote:
It seems that in general
gam(y~lo(x)) # gam() from the gam package.
and
loess(y~x)
give slightly different results (in respect of the predicted/fitted
values).
Most noticeable at the endpoints of the range of x.
Can anyone enlighten me about the reason for this
6 matches
Mail list logo
