Welcome to ShenZhenJia Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
menu search
person
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

Could someone please explain why I get different answers using the aggregate function to count missing values by group? Also, is there a better way to count missing values by group using a native R function?

DF <- data.frame(YEAR=c(2000,2000,2000,2001,2001,2001,2001,2002,2002,2002), X=c(1,NA,3,NA,NA,NA,7,8,9,10))
DF

aggregate(X ~ YEAR, data=DF, function(x) { sum(is.na(x)) })
with(DF, aggregate(X, list(YEAR), function(x) { sum(is.na(x)) }))

aggregate(X ~ YEAR, data=DF, function(x) { sum(! is.na(x)) })
with(DF, aggregate(X, list(YEAR), function(x) { sum(! is.na(x)) }))
See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
thumb_up_alt 0 like thumb_down_alt 0 dislike
390 views
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Answer

The help page at ?aggregate points out that the formula method has an argument na.action which is set by default to na.omit.

na.action: a function which indicates what should happen when the data contain NA values. The default is to ignore missing values in the given variables.

Change that argument to NULL or na.pass instead to get the results you are probably expecting:

# aggregate(X ~ YEAR, data=DF, function(x) {sum(is.na(x))}, na.action = na.pass)
aggregate(X ~ YEAR, data=DF, function(x) {sum(is.na(x))}, na.action = NULL)
#   YEAR X
# 1 2000 1
# 2 2001 3
# 3 2002 0

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
thumb_up_alt 0 like thumb_down_alt 0 dislike
Welcome to ShenZhenJia Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
...