density with weights missing values

You're right, of course. Extrapolating your argument a bit, the whole
practice of na.rm is questionable, since there's always a reason for
missingness (that is not in x and rarely elsewhere in the data)Best
wishes?Matthias?
-------- Urspr?ngliche Nachricht --------Von: Jeff Newmiller
<jdnewmil at dcn.davis.ca.us> Datum: 12.07.21  18:44  (GMT+01:00) An:
r-help at r-project.org, matthias-gondan <matthias-gondan at gmx.de>, Bert
Gunter <bgunter.4567 at gmail.com> Cc: r-help at r-project.org Betreff: Re:
[R] density with weights missing values Sure, you might think that.But
most likely the reason this code has not been corrected is that when
you give weights for missing data the most correct result is for your
entire density to be invalid.Fix your inputs so they make sense to you
and there is no problem. But absent your intellectual input to
restructure your problem the weights no longer make sense once
density() removes the NAs from the data.On July 12, 2021 9:13:12 AM
PDT, matthias-gondan <matthias-gondan at gmx.de> wrote:>The thing is that
for na.rm=TRUE, I would expect the weights>corresponding to the missing
x to be removed, as well. Like in>weighted.mean. So this one shouldn't
raise an error,density(c(1, 2, 3,>4, 5, NA), na.rm=TRUE, weights=c(1,
1, 1, 1, 1, 1))Or am I missing>something??>-------- Urspr?ngliche
Nachricht --------Von: Bert Gunter><bgunter.4567 at gmail.com> Datum:
12.07.21? 16:25? (GMT+01:00) An:>Matthias Gondan
<matthias-gondan at gmx.de> Cc: r-help at r-project.org>Betreff: Re: [R]
density with weights missing values The behavior is as>documented
AFAICS.na.rmlogical; if TRUE, missing values are removed>from x. If
FALSE anymissing values cause an error.The default
is>FALSE.weightsnumeric vector of non-negative observation weights.NA
is>not a non-negative numeric.Bert Gunter"The trouble with having an
open>mind is that people keep coming alongand sticking things into
it."-->Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed in his "Bloom County" comic strip
)Bert>Gunter"The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep
coming>alongand sticking things into it."-- Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed
in his>"Bloom County" comic strip )On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 6:10 AM
Matthias>Gondan <matthias-gondan at gmx.de> wrote:>> Weighted mean
behaves>differently:> ? weight is excluded for missing x> ? no warning
for>sum(weights) != 1>> > weighted.mean(c(1, 2, 3, 4), weights=c(1, 1,
1,>1))> [1] 2.5> > weighted.mean(c(1, 2, 3, NA), weights=c(1, 1, 1,
1))>>[1] NA> > weighted.mean(c(1, 2, 3, NA), weights=c(1, 1, 1,
1),>na.rm=TRUE)> [1] 2>>>>> Von: Richard O'Keefe> Gesendet: Montag,
12.>Juli 2021 13:18> An: Matthias Gondan> Betreff: Re: [R] density
with>weights missing values>> Does your copy of R say that the weights
must>add up to 1?> ?density doesn't say that in mine.?? But it does
check.>>>On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 22:42, Matthias Gondan
<matthias-gondan at gmx.de>>wrote:> >> > Dear R users,> >> > This works as
expected:> >> > ?>plot(density(c(1,2, 3, 4, 5, NA), na.rm=TRUE))> >> >
This raises an>error> >> > ? plot(density(c(1,2, 3, 4, 5, NA),
na.rm=TRUE,>weights=c(1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)))> > ? plot(density(c(1,2, 3,
4, 5, NA),>na.rm=TRUE, weights=c(1, 1, 1, 1, 1, NA)))> >> > This seems
to work (it>triggers a warning that the weights don?t add up to 1,
which makes>sense*):> >> > ? plot(density(c(1,2, 3, 4, 5, NA),
na.rm=TRUE,>weights=c(1, 1, 1, 1, 1)))> >> > Questions> >> > ? But
shouldn?t the>na.rm filter also filter the corresponding weights?> > ?
Extra>question: In case the na.rm filter is changed to filter the
weights,>the check for sum(weights) == 1 might trigger false positive
warnings>since the weights might not add up to 1 anymore> >> > Best
wishes,> >>>> Matthias> >> >> >???????? [[alternative HTML version
deleted]]> >> >>______________________________________________> >