Whoops, yes it seems reasonable that the dimnames will appear on the result of an algebra. This was an oversight on my part. I'll add a ticket for this issue.
Tangentially, I remain confused about why the matrix examples print out no fit statistics... is that a bug, or on the to-do list, or left to the user to figure out?
reduction: run trunk/demo/UnivariateTwinAnalysis_MatrixRaw.R
> summary(twinAEFit)
name matrix row col parameter estimate error estimate
1 mean expMeanMZ 1 1 21.3929339 53.45028
2 a X 1 1 0.7856859 71.82837
3 e Z 1 1 0.4159882 110.59854
Observed statistics: 0
Estimated parameters: 3
Degrees of freedom: -3
AIC:
BIC:
adjusted BIC:
RMSEA:
Oh-yes, also, adjusted-BIC is not printed for a simple factor model.
Should mxEval() pass through the dimNames of algebra results?
if I
mxEval(expCovMZ, twinACEFit)
I get a matrix, but without names
They were set on the algebra
mxAlgebra(rbind (cbind(A+C+E , A+C),
cbind(A+C , A+C+E)), dimnames = list(selVars, selVars), name="expCovMZ"),
And are in the model Fit:
twinACEFit@algebras$expCovMZ
mxAlgebra 'expCovMZ'
@formula: rbind(cbind(A + C + E, A + C), cbind(A + C, A + C + E))
@result:
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4]
[1,] 0.790535801 -0.004704324 0.617627914 -0.001694689
[2,] -0.004704324 0.004559813 -0.001694689 0.004015630
[3,] 0.617627914 -0.001694689 0.790535801 -0.004704324
[4,] -0.001694689 0.004015630 -0.004704324 0.004559813
dimnames:
[[1]]
[1] "bmi1" "ht1" "bmi2" "ht2"
[[2]]
[1] "bmi1" "ht1" "bmi2" "ht2"
Whoops, yes it seems reasonable that the dimnames will appear on the result of an algebra. This was an oversight on my part. I'll add a ticket for this issue.
Nice catch. The dimnames printed with the output will be helpful.
Tangentially, I remain confused about why the matrix examples print out no fit statistics... is that a bug, or on the to-do list, or left to the user to figure out?
reduction: run trunk/demo/UnivariateTwinAnalysis_MatrixRaw.R
Oh-yes, also, adjusted-BIC is not printed for a simple factor model.
Significant Bug? Hi, I think the complete lack of fit statistics on these matrix models is a significant bug, no?