Hi Martin, indeed, as mentioned in the bug-report, the results are inconsistent, and each time I rerun, I get different results... Sometimes, the range is correct even on my machine, but mostly I get values >1 back:
Here is another run: > ### load the data: a list called approx.data > load(file="approx.data.Rdata") > ### contains the slots "x", "y", "input" > names(approx.data) [1] "x" "y" "input" > ### with y ranging between 0 and 1 .... > ### generate the interpolation function (warning message benign) > interp <- approxfun(approx.data$x, approx.data$y, yleft=1, yright=0, rule=2) Warning message: In approxfun(approx.data$x, approx.data$y, yleft = 1, yright = 0, : collapsing to unique 'x' values > ### apply to input-values > y.out <- interp(approx.data$input) > > ### still I find output values >1, even though yleft=1: > range(y.out) [1] -1.360612e+81 2.151192e+249 .... This script was run on the same machine, same R-version ect. this demonstrates the issue again, and when running the script again before the bug-report, I had overlooked, that the range was indeed correct... I guess Greg Snow had suggested a fix for the bug correctly and the issue should be resolved as posted by Duncan Murdoch. Thanks a million!! Best, Sam On 11 September 2010 15:53, Martin Maechler <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >>>>>> "MM" == Martin Maechler <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> >>>>>> on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 16:04:37 +0200 writes: > >>>>>> "SW" == Samuel Wuest <wue...@tcd.ie> >>>>>> on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:34:26 +0100 writes: > > SW> Hi Greg, > SW> thanks for the suggestion: > > SW> I have attached some small dataset that can be used to reproduce the > SW> odd behavior of the approxfun-function. > > SW> If it gets stripped off my email, it can also be downloaded at: > SW> http://bioinf.gen.tcd.ie/approx.data.Rdata > > SW> Strangely, the problem seems specific to the data structure in my > SW> expression set, when I use simulated data, everything worked fine. > > SW> Here is some code that I run and resulted in the strange output that I > SW> have described in my initial post: > > >>> ### load the data: a list called approx.data > >>> load(file="approx.data.Rdata") > >>> ### contains the slots "x", "y", "input" > >>> names(approx.data) > SW> [1] "x" "y" "input" > >>> ### with y ranging between 0 and 1 > >>> range(approx.data$y) > SW> [1] 0 1 > >>> ### compare ranges of x and input-x values (the latter is a small > subset of 500 data points): > >>> range(approx.data$x) > SW> [1] 3.098444 7.268812 > >>> range(approx.data$input) > SW> [1] 3.329408 13.026700 > >>> > >>> > >>> ### generate the interpolation function (warning message benign) > >>> interp <- approxfun(approx.data$x, approx.data$y, yleft=1, yright=0, > rule=2) > SW> Warning message: > SW> In approxfun(approx.data$x, approx.data$y, yleft = 1, yright = 0, : > SW> collapsing to unique 'x' values > >>> > >>> ### apply to input-values > >>> y.out <- sapply(approx.data$input, interp) > >>> > >>> ### still I find output values >1, even though yleft=1: > >>> range(y.out) > SW> [1] 0.000000 7.207233 > > > MM> I get completely different (and correct) results, > MM> by the way the *same* you have in the bug report you've > MM> submitted > MM> (https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14377) > MM> and which does *not* show any bug: > > >> range(y.out) > MM> [1] 0.0000000 0.9816907 > > MM> Of course, I do believe that you've seen the above problems, > MM> -- on 64-bit Mac ? as you report in sessionInfo() ? -- > MM> but I cannot reproduce them. > > MM> And also, you seem yourself to be able to get different results > MM> for the same data... what are the circumstances? > > I now see that you *did* mention the fact that you > see *different* results when you *RE*run the same code > on this data. > The subject (" ...yleft and yright ignored") is misleading in > any case. These are not at all ignored..., > but indeed (as Duncan Murdoch has noted on the bug website), > there *is* a bug, > so you are principally right in reporting -- thank you! > .... > and I could also confirm that -- as you mentioned in your first > post -- this bug does not appear when using R 2.8.1 (at least on > my platform). > > Martin > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Samuel Wuest Smurfit Institute of Genetics Trinity College Dublin Dublin 2, Ireland Phone: +353-1-896 2444 Web: http://www.tcd.ie/Genetics/wellmer-2/index.html Email: wue...@tcd.ie ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
