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
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"
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to Should mxEval() pass through by tbates
Whoops, yes it seems
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.
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to Should mxEval() pass through by tbates
Nice catch. The dimnames
Nice catch. The dimnames printed with the output will be helpful.
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to Nice catch. The dimnames by Steve
Tangentially, I remain
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.
require(OpenMx) data(demoOneFactor) manifests <- names(demoOneFactor) latents <- c("G") factorModel <- mxModel("One Factor", type="RAM", + manifestVars = manifests, + latentVars = latents, + mxPath(from=latents, to=manifests), + mxPath(from=manifests, arrows=2), + mxPath(from=latents, arrows=2, + free=F, values=1.0), + mxData(cov(demoOneFactor), type="cov", + numObs=500)) summary(mxRun(factorModel)) ... Observed statistics: 15 Estimated parameters: 10 Degrees of freedom: 5 AIC: -3658.281 BIC: -1839.677 adjusted BIC: RMSEA: 0.03088043Log in or register to post comments
In reply to Tangentially, I remain by tbates
Significant Bug? Hi, I think
Significant Bug? Hi, I think the complete lack of fit statistics on these matrix models is a significant bug, no?
Log in or register to post comments