From Mark.Lamias at grizzard.com  Thu Sep 18 10:48:05 2003
From: Mark.Lamias at grizzard.com (Mark Lamias)
Date: Thu Sep 18 15:49:59 2003
Subject: [Rd] dwilcox (PR#4212)
Message-ID: <BF3C804D59EE4C40BF5376A0FABA4AA62F65C0@atl_mail.griz-main.com>

Torsten,

Thank you for clarifying.  I see where I have made the mistake.  I failed to
properly read the definition.

Sorry to inconvenience you.

Sincerely yours,

Mark J. Lamias

-----Original Message-----
From: Torsten Hothorn [mailto:Torsten.Hothorn@rzmail.uni-erlangen.de]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 3:04 AM
To: mark.lamias@grizzard.com
Cc: r-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [Rd] dwilcox (PR#4212)



> Full_Name: Mark J. Lamias
> Version: 1.7.0
> OS: Windows 2000 Pro
> Submission from: (NULL) (65.222.84.72)
>
>
> I am running the qwilcox procedure and it is producing incorrect results.
For
> example, dwilcox(.025, 3, 5)

not really:

R> dwilcox(.025, 3, 5)
[1] 0

which is natural since the statistic can take integer values only.

> should equal 6, but it is equal to 1.  Similarly,
> dwilcox(.025, 3, 6) should equal 7, but it equals 2.  The critical values
are
> not set being returned with the correct values.  I've verified this with a
> program that performs direct enumeration to determine the appropriate
critical
> values for .05 (two- tail):
>
> n1 n2 n crtical_value
> 3 5 8 6


I think you failed to notice what `?qwilcox' tries to tell you:

     This distribution is obtained as follows.  Let 'x' and 'y' be two
     random, independent samples of size 'm' and 'n'. Then the Wilcoxon
     rank sum statistic is the number of all pairs '(x[i], y[j])' for
     which 'y[j]' is not greater than 'x[i]'.  This statistic takes
     values between '0' and 'm * n', and its mean and variance are 'm *
     n / 2' and 'm * n * (m + n + 1) / 12', respectively.

Moreover, it is documented that `probabilities are P[X <= x]' and
therefore

R> qwilcox(.025, 3, 5) + 3*4/2
[1] 7

means "the smallest x with P(W <= x) => 0.025 is 7" which you can check
easily

R> pwilcox(7 - 3*4/2, 3, 5)
[1] 0.03571429

whereas following your calculations

R> pwilcox(6 - 3*4/2, 3, 5)
[1] 0.01785714

Best,

Torsten

> 3 6 9 7
> 3 7 10 7
> 3 8 11 8
> 3 9 12 8
> 3 10 13 9
> 3 11 14 9
> 3 12 15 10
> 3 13 16 10
> 3 14 17 11
> 3 15 18 11
> 3 16 19 12
> 3 17 20 12
> 3 18 21 13
> 3 19 22 13
> 3 20 23 14
> 3 21 24 14
> 3 22 25 15
> 3 23 26 15
> 3 24 27 16
> 3 25 28 16
> 3 26 29 17
> 3 27 30 17
> 3 28 31 18
> 3 29 32 19
> 3 30 33 19
> 4 4 8 10
> 4 5 9 11
> 4 6 10 12
> 4 7 11 13
> 4 8 12 14
> 4 9 13 14
> 4 10 14 15
> 4 11 15 16
> 4 12 16 17
> 4 13 17 18
> 4 14 18 19
> 4 15 19 20
> 4 16 20 21
> 4 17 21 21
> 4 18 22 22
> 4 19 23 23
> 4 20 24 24
> 4 21 25 25
> 4 22 26 26
> 4 23 27 27
> 4 24 28 27
> 4 25 29 28
> 4 26 30 29
> 4 27 31 30
> 4 28 32 31
> 4 29 33 32
> 4 30 34 33
> 5 5 10 17
> 5 6 11 18
> 5 7 12 20
> 5 8 13 21
> 5 9 14 22
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
>


[Rd] dwilcox (PR#4212)
Mark Lamias