Closed felixthoemmes closed 6 years ago
Not sure I understand this, what is wrong with simply calling "set.seed" before running simulateSEM?
Not sure I understand either, since it's been a while I posted this, and TBH I don't recall details. But if just putting set.seed works, then that's great and the issue can be closed.
On Oct 31, 2017 7:41 PM, "Johannes Textor" notifications@github.com wrote:
Not sure I understand this, what is wrong with simply calling "set.seed" before running simulateSEM?
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/jtextor/dagitty/issues/12#issuecomment-340938770, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQSMYjsLgOCjGWchyw3QSFCHweq8t2Oqks5sx7AUgaJpZM4MYi4U .
Yes this works as you can testify by running the following multiple times:
set.seed(123); with(simulateSEM( "dag{x->y}" ),cov(x,y))
Closing this as having a separate argument seems unnecessary.
To increase reproducibility, it would be good to have a set.seed() function for simulateSEM, like
dat1 <- simulateSEM(dag1,b.default = .3,N=500,set.seed=1234)
That way, one could always generate the same (simulated) data, across different runs of R code.