Timeline for A test for randomness of direction of vector data
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2012 at 15:37 | comment | added | R Hahn | @Brendan, I guess as an applied statistician I'm usually happy to rule out the kind of degeneracy you mention, but your point is well taken. On a separate note, several years ago I used your nauty program when doing my masters degree on a branch-and-bound algorithm for the maximum independent set problem. So thanks for that! | |
| Oct 27, 2012 at 7:44 | comment | added | Brendan McKay | A set of pretty uniformly distributed points, and the same set with one point appearing a billion times, will get the same measure. Your test is valid, but it's power will be very low. | |
| Aug 27, 2011 at 6:33 | comment | added | R Hahn | Yeah, in that case you'd need to cluster the observations in some way first, so the relevant area would be over disjoint convex covering regions. But the basic idea of comparing the containing area to the total possible area still stands I would think. There are surely lots of (different) ways to do (basically) what you want -- it all boils down to operationally defining "preferred direction". Good luck. | |
| Aug 27, 2011 at 6:09 | comment | added | Nuun | That's a decent idea, I think. But what if there are several preferred directions? | |
| Aug 27, 2011 at 4:38 | history | answered | R Hahn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |