bugPSPP - Bugs: bug #46727, REGRESSION subcommand SAVE does...


bug #46727: REGRESSION subcommand SAVE does not honor filter variables

Submitted by:  elias tsolis <estatistics>
Submitted on:  Sun Dec 20 16:21:13 2015  
Category: Syntax ParserSeverity: 5 - Average
Status: ConfirmedAssigned to: None
Open/Closed: OpenRelease: None
Effort: 0.00

Add a New Comment (Rich MarkupRich Markup):

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.


(Jump to the original submission Jump to the original submission)

Fri Feb 5 15:08:41 2016, comment #6:

Downgrading, since Ben pushed a partial fix.

John Darrington <jmd>
Project Administrator
Sun Jan 3 06:28:49 2016, comment #5:

I added the warning.

Ben Pfaff <blp>
Project Administrator
Sun Jan 3 06:23:29 2016, comment #4:

Elias, I can confirm that filters are ignored. Before we can change that, we need to define the desired behavior for the filtered cases. Should the new variables be system-missing for the filtered cases? Or should the new variables be calculated as they are for other cases, even though their values did not participate in calculating the regression parameters?

John, I don't think this is related to bug #44877 (which I know I said I'd fix; I still plan to).

For the moment, I'll aim to add a warning if FILTER is present when REGRESSION with a SAVE subcommand is processed.

Ben Pfaff <blp>
Project Administrator
Mon Dec 21 10:22:20 2015, comment #3:

It seems you are right. The /SAVE command behaves badly. This
is probably related to bug #44877 which is still not fixed.

John Darrington <jmd>
Project Administrator
Sun Dec 20 17:11:34 2015, comment #2:

After a lot of experimentation,
I found out that Regression command IGNORES ANY FILTER variable when "/SAVE= RESID." subcommand is used for unknown reason!!!

Can anyone repeat this bug?

I use the following syntax:


elias tsolis <estatistics>
Sun Dec 20 16:46:40 2015, comment #1:

The only way to make it work is the following one:

Computing a filter variable based on a cut-off score of a variable (line 1), and then, you apply the filter (line 2), and finally, you compute a new variable based on the old one (the one that is predicted by vars - line three).

A Work around to this bug!

compute filter2=RES2<60
FILTER BY filter2.
compute numall2=numall

elias tsolis <estatistics>
Sun Dec 20 16:21:13 2015, original submission:

Filter variable is not working for regression!!!

I have a filter variable 0/1 and when i produce regression statistics together with plots from examine command, i get TWO very different results based on sampel size!

Any adjustment of Filter variable has no any impact on sample size used by regression command!!!

Check it out!

elias tsolis <estatistics>


(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach File(s):

No files currently attached


Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found


Carbon-Copy List
  • -unavailable- added by blp (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by jmd (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by estatistics (Submitted the item)

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can click here to add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.


    Please enter the title of George Orwell's famous dystopian book (it's a date):



    Follow 4 latest changes.

    Date Changed By Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced By
    Fri Feb 5 15:08:41 2016jmdSeverity7 - Major=>5 - Average
    Sun Jan 3 06:23:29 2016blpSummaryFilter variable is not workign for regression!!!=>REGRESSION subcommand SAVE does not honor filter variables
    Mon Dec 21 10:22:20 2015jmdSeverity5 - Average=>7 - Major

    Back to the top

    Powered by Savane 3.1-cleanup1