I have just started my basic statistic course using R and we're studying using R for paired t-tests. I have come across questions where we're given two sets of data and we're asked to find whether the difference in mean is equal to 0 or greater than 0 so on so forth. The function we use for two samples x and y with an unknown variance is similar to the one below;
t.test(x, y, var.equal=TRUE, alternative="greater")
My question is, how would we to do this if we wanted to test the difference in mean is more than or equal to a specified number against the alternative that its less than a specific number and not 0.
For example, say we're given two datas for before and after weights of 10 people. How do we test that the mean difference in weight is more than or equal to say 3kg against the alternative where the mean difference in weight is less than 3kg. Is there a way to do this? Would really appreciate any guidance on this matter.
It might be worthwhile posting on https://stats.stackexchange.com/ as well if you're in need of more theoretical proof. Is it ok to add/subtract the 3kg from either x or y and then use the t-test to check for similarity? I think this would tell you at least which outcome is more likely, if that's the end goal. It would be good to get feedback on this
# number of obs, and rnorm dist for simulating
N <- 10
mu <- 70
sd <- 10
set.seed(1)
x <- round(rnorm(N, mu, sd), 1)
# three outcomes
# (1) no change
y_same <- x + round(rnorm(N, 0, 5), 1)
# (2) average increase of 3
y_imp <- x + rnorm(N, 3, 5)
# (3) average decrease of 3
y_dec <- x + rnorm(N, -3, 5)
# say y_imp is true
y_act <- y_imp
# can we test whether we're closer to the output by altering
# the original data? or conversely, altering y_imp
t_inc <- t.test(x+3, y_act, var.equal=TRUE, alternative="two.sided")
t_dec <- t.test(x-3, y_act, var.equal=TRUE, alternative="two.sided")
t_inc$p.value
[1] 0.8279801
t_dec$p.value
[1] 0.0956033
# one with the highest p.value has the closest distribution, so
# +3 kg more likely than -3kg
You can set mu=3 to change the null hypothesis from 0 to 3 assuming your x variables are in the units you describe above.
t.test(x, y, mu=3, alternative="greater", paired=TRUE)
More (general) information on Stack Exchange [here].(https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/206316/can-a-paired-or-two-group-t-test-test-if-the-difference-between-two-means-is-l/206317#206317)
Related
I'm trying to assess the feasibility of an instrumental variable in my project with a variable I havent seen before. The variable essentially is an interaction between the mean and standard deviation of a sample drawn from a gaussian, and im trying to see what this distribution might look like. Below is what im trying to do, any help is much appreciated.
Generate a set of 1000 individuals with a variable x following the gaussian distribution, draw 50 random samples of 5 individuals from this distribution with replacement, calculate the means and standard deviation of x for each sample, create an interaction variable named y which is calculated by multiplying the mean and standard deviation of x for each sample, plot the distribution of y.
Beginners version
There might be more efficient ways to code this, but this is easy to follow, I guess:
stat_pop <- rnorm(1000, mean = 0, sd = 1)
N = 50
# As Ben suggested, we create a data.frame filled with NA values
samples <- data.frame(mean = rep(NA, N), sd = rep(NA, N))
# Now we use a loop to populate the data.frame
for(i in 1:N){
# draw 5 samples from population (without replacement)
# I assume you want to replace for each turn of taking 5
# If you want to replace between drawing each of the 5,
# I think it should be obvious how to adapt the following code
smpl <- sample(stat_pop, size = 5, replace = FALSE)
# the data.frame currently has two columns. In each row i, we put mean and sd
samples[i, ] <- c(mean(smpl), sd(smpl))
}
# $ is used to get a certain column of the data.frame by the column name.
# Here, we create a new column y based on the existing two columns.
samples$y <- samples$mean * samples$sd
# plot a histogram
hist(samples$y)
Most functions here use positional arguments, i.e., you are not required to name every parameter. E.g., rnorm(1000, mean = 0, sd = 1) is the same as rnorm(1000, 0, 1) and even the same as rnorm(1000), since 0 and 1 are the default values.
Somewhat more efficient version
In R, loops are very inefficient and, thus, ought to be avoided. In case of your question, it does not make any noticeable difference. However, for large data sets, performance should be kept in mind. The following might be a bit harder to follow:
stat_pop <- rnorm(1000, mean = 0, sd = 1)
N = 50
n = 5
# again, I set replace = FALSE here; if you meant to replace each individual
# (so the same individual can be drawn more than once in each "draw 5"),
# set replace = TRUE
# replicate repeats the "draw 5" action N times
smpls <- replicate(N, sample(stat_pop, n, replace = FALSE))
# we transform the output and turn it into a data.frame to make it
# more convenient to work with
samples <- data.frame(t(smpls))
samples$mean <- rowMeans(samples)
samples$sd <- apply(samples[, c(1:n)], 1, sd)
samples$y <- samples$mean * samples$sd
hist(samples$y)
General note
Usually, you should do some research on the problem before posting here. Then, you either find out how it works by yourself, or you can provide an example of what you tried. To this end, you can simply google each of the steps you outlined (e.g., google "generate random standard distribution R" in order to find out about the function rnorm().
Run ?rnorm to get help on the function in RStudio.
I have a dataset with several groups, where I want to calculate a median value for each group using dplyr. The data are weighted, and the weights need to be taken into account in calculating the median. I found the weighted.median function from spatstat which seems to work fine. Consider the following simplified example:
require(spatstat, dplyr)
tst <- data.frame(group = rep(c(1:5), each = 100))
tst$val = runif(500) * tst$group
tst$wt = runif(500) * tst$val
tst %>%
group_by(group) %>%
summarise(weighted.median(val, wt))
# A tibble: 5 × 2
group `weighted.median(val, wt)`
<int> <dbl>
1 1 0.752
2 2 1.36
3 3 1.99
4 4 2.86
5 5 3.45
However, I would also like to add 95% confidence intervals to these values, and this has me stumped. Things I've considered:
Spatstat also has a weighted.var function but there's no documentation, and it's not even clear to me whether this is variance around the median or mean.
This rcompanion post suggests various methods for calculating CIs around medians, but as far as I can tell none of them handle weights.
This blog post suggests a function for calculating CIs and a median for weighted data, and is the closest I can find to what I need. However, it doesn't work with my dplyr groupings. I suppose I could write a loop to do this one group at a time and build the output data frame, but that seems cumbersome. I'm also not totally sure I understand the function in the post and slightly suspicious of its results- for instance, testing this out I get wider estimates for alpha=0.1 than for alpha=0.05, which seems backwards to me. Edit to add: upon further investigation, I think this function works as intended if I use alpha=0.95 for 95% CIs, rather than alpha = 0.05 (at least, this returns values that feel intuitively about right). I can also make it work with dplyr by editing to return just a single moe value rather than a pair of high/low estimates. So this may be a good option- but I'm also considering others.
Is there an existing function in some library somewhere that can do what I want, or an otherwise straightforward way to implement this?
There are several approaches.
You could use the asymptotic formula for standard error of the sample median. The sample median is asymptotically normal with standard error 1/sqrt(4 n f(m)) where n is the number of observations, m is the true median, and f(x) is the probability density of the (weighted) random variable. You could estimate the probability density using the base R function density.default with the weights argument. If x is the vector of observed values and w the corresponding vector of weights, then
med <- weighted.median(x, w)
f <- density(x, weights=w)
fmed <- approx(f$x, f$y, xout=med)$y
samplesize <- length(x)
se <- 1/sqrt(4 * samplesize * fmed)
ci <- med + c(-1,1) * 1.96 * se
This relies on several asymptotic approximations so it may be inaccurate. Also the sample size depends on the interpretation of the weights. In some cases the sample size could be equal to sum(w).
If there is very little data in each group, you could use the even simpler normal reference approximation,
med <- weighted.median(x, w)
v <- weighted.var(x, w)
sdm <- sqrt(pi/2) * sqrt(v)
samplesize <- length(x)
se <- sdm/sqrt(samplesize)
ci <- med + c(-1,1) * 1.96 * se
Alternatively you could use bootstrapping - generate random resamples of the input data (by choosing random resamples of the indices 1, 2, ..., n), extract the corresponding weighted observations (x_i, w_i), compute the weighted median of each resampled dataset, and construct the 95% confidence interval.
(This approach implicitly assumes the sample size is equal to n)
For a science project, I am looking for a way to generate random data in a certain range (e.g. min=0, max=100000) with a certain correlation with another variable which already exists in R. The goal is to enrich the dataset a little so I can produce some more meaningful graphs (no worries, I am working with fictional data).
For example, I want to generate random values correlating with r=-.78 with the following data:
var1 <- rnorm(100, 50, 10)
I already came across some pretty good solutions (i.e. https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/15011/generate-a-random-variable-with-a-defined-correlation-to-an-existing-variable), but only get very small values, which I cannot transform so the make sense in the context of the other, original values.
Following the example:
var1 <- rnorm(100, 50, 10)
n <- length(var1)
rho <- -0.78
theta <- acos(rho)
x1 <- var1
x2 <- rnorm(n, 50, 50)
X <- cbind(x1, x2)
Xctr <- scale(X, center=TRUE, scale=FALSE)
Id <- diag(n)
Q <- qr.Q(qr(Xctr[ , 1, drop=FALSE]))
P <- tcrossprod(Q) # = Q Q'
x2o <- (Id-P) %*% Xctr[ , 2]
Xc2 <- cbind(Xctr[ , 1], x2o)
Y <- Xc2 %*% diag(1/sqrt(colSums(Xc2^2)))
var2 <- Y[ , 2] + (1 / tan(theta)) * Y[ , 1]
cor(var1, var2)
What I get for var2 are values ranging between -0.5 and 0.5. with a mean of 0. I would like to have much more distributed data, so I could simply transform it by adding 50 and have a quite simililar range compared to my first variable.
Does anyone of you know a way to generate this kind of - more or less -meaningful data?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Starting with var1, renamed to A, and using 10,000 points:
set.seed(1)
A <- rnorm(10000,50,10) # Mean of 50
First convert values in A to have the new desired mean 50,000 and have an inverse relationship (ie subtract):
B <- 1e5 - (A*1e3) # Note that { mean(A) * 1000 = 50,000 }
This only results in r = -1. Add some noise to achieve the desired r:
B <- B + rnorm(10000,0,8.15e3) # Note this noise has mean = 0
# the amount of noise, 8.15e3, was found through parameter-search
This has your desired correlation:
cor(A,B)
[1] -0.7805972
View with:
plot(A,B)
Caution
Your B values might fall outside your range 0 100,000. You might need to filter for values outside your range if you use a different seed or generate more numbers.
That said, the current range is fine:
range(B)
[1] 1668.733 95604.457
If you're happy with the correlation and the marginal distribution (ie, shape) of the generated values, multiply the values (that fall between (-.5, +.5) by 100,000 and add 50,000.
> c(-0.5, 0.5) * 100000 + 50000
[1] 0e+00 1e+05
edit: this approach, or any thing else where 100,000 & 50,000 are exchanged for different numbers, will be an example of a 'linear transformation' recommended by #gregor-de-cillia.
I am hoping to create 3 (non-negative) quasi-random numbers that sum to one, and repeat over and over.
Basically I am trying to partition something into three random parts over many trials.
While I am aware of
a = runif(3,0,1)
I was thinking that I could use 1-a as the max in the next runif, but it seems messy.
But these of course don't sum to one. Any thoughts, oh wise stackoverflow-ers?
This question involves subtler issues than might be at first apparent. After looking at the following, you may want to think carefully about the process that you are using these numbers to represent:
## My initial idea (and commenter Anders Gustafsson's):
## Sample 3 random numbers from [0,1], sum them, and normalize
jobFun <- function(n) {
m <- matrix(runif(3*n,0,1), ncol=3)
m<- sweep(m, 1, rowSums(m), FUN="/")
m
}
## Andrie's solution. Sample 1 number from [0,1], then break upper
## interval in two. (aka "Broken stick" distribution).
andFun <- function(n){
x1 <- runif(n)
x2 <- runif(n)*(1-x1)
matrix(c(x1, x2, 1-(x1+x2)), ncol=3)
}
## ddzialak's solution (vectorized by me)
ddzFun <- function(n) {
a <- runif(n, 0, 1)
b <- runif(n, 0, 1)
rand1 = pmin(a, b)
rand2 = abs(a - b)
rand3 = 1 - pmax(a, b)
cbind(rand1, rand2, rand3)
}
## Simulate 10k triplets using each of the functions above
JOB <- jobFun(10000)
AND <- andFun(10000)
DDZ <- ddzFun(10000)
## Plot the distributions of values
par(mfcol=c(2,2))
hist(JOB, main="JOB")
hist(AND, main="AND")
hist(DDZ, main="DDZ")
just random 2 digits from (0, 1) and if assume its a and b then you got:
rand1 = min(a, b)
rand2 = abs(a - b)
rand3 = 1 - max(a, b)
When you want to randomly generate numbers that add to 1 (or some other value) then you should look at the Dirichlet Distribution.
There is an rdirichlet function in the gtools package and running RSiteSearch('Dirichlet') brings up quite a few hits that could easily lead you to tools for doing this (and it is not hard to code by hand either for simple Dirichlet distributions).
I guess it depends on what distribution you want on the numbers, but here is one way:
diff(c(0, sort(runif(2)), 1))
Use replicate to get as many sets as you want:
> x <- replicate(5, diff(c(0, sort(runif(2)), 1)))
> x
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5]
[1,] 0.66855903 0.01338052 0.3722026 0.4299087 0.67537181
[2,] 0.32130979 0.69666871 0.2670380 0.3359640 0.25860581
[3,] 0.01013117 0.28995078 0.3607594 0.2341273 0.06602238
> colSums(x)
[1] 1 1 1 1 1
I would simply randomly select 3 numbers from uniform distribution and then divide by their sum:
n <- 3
x <- runif(n, 0, 1)
y <- x / sum(x)
sum(y) == 1
n could be any number you like.
This problem and the different solutions proposed intrigued me. I did a little test of the three basic algorithms suggested and what average values they would yield for the numbers generated.
choose_one_and_divide_rest
means: [ 0.49999212 0.24982403 0.25018384]
standard deviations: [ 0.28849948 0.22032758 0.22049302]
time needed to fill array of size 1000000 was 26.874945879 seconds
choose_two_points_and_use_intervals
means: [ 0.33301421 0.33392816 0.33305763]
standard deviations: [ 0.23565652 0.23579615 0.23554689]
time needed to fill array of size 1000000 was 28.8600130081 seconds
choose_three_and_normalize
means: [ 0.33334531 0.33336692 0.33328777]
standard deviations: [ 0.17964206 0.17974085 0.17968462]
time needed to fill array of size 1000000 was 27.4301018715 seconds
The time measurements are to be taken with a grain of salt as they might be more influenced by the Python memory management than by the algorithm itself. I'm too lazy to do it properly with timeit. I did this on 1GHz Atom so that explains why it took so long.
Anyway, choose_one_and_divide_rest is the algorithm suggested by Andrie and the poster of the question him/herself (AND): you choose one value a in [0,1], then one in [a,1] and then you look what you have left. It adds up to one but that's about it, the first division is twice as large as the other two. One might have guessed as much ...
choose_two_points_and_use_intervals is the accepted answer by ddzialak (DDZ). It takes two points in the interval [0,1] and uses the size of the three sub-intervals created by these points as the three numbers. Works like a charm and the means are all 1/3.
choose_three_and_normalize is the solution by Anders Gustafsson and Josh O'Brien (JOB). It just generates three numbers in [0,1] and normalizes them back to a sum of 1. Works just as well and surprisingly a little bit faster in my Python implementation. The variance is a bit lower than for the second solution.
There you have it. No idea to what beta distribution these solutions correspond or which set of parameters in the corresponding paper I referred to in a comment but maybe someone else can figure that out.
The simplest solution is the Wakefield package probs() function
probs(3) will yield a vector of three values with a sum of 1
given that you can rep(probs(3),x) where x is "over and over"
no drama
In the following code I use bootstrapping to calculate the C.I. and the p-value under the null hypothesis that two different fertilizers applied to tomato plants have no effect in plants yields (and the alternative being that the "improved" fertilizer is better). The first random sample (x) comes from plants where a standard fertilizer has been used, while an "improved" one has been used in the plants where the second sample (y) comes from.
x <- c(11.4,25.3,29.9,16.5,21.1)
y <- c(23.7,26.6,28.5,14.2,17.9,24.3)
total <- c(x,y)
library(boot)
diff <- function(x,i) mean(x[i[6:11]]) - mean(x[i[1:5]])
b <- boot(total, diff, R = 10000)
ci <- boot.ci(b)
p.value <- sum(b$t>=b$t0)/b$R
What I don't like about the code above is that resampling is done as if there was only one sample of 11 values (separating the first 5 as belonging to sample x leaving the rest to sample y).
Could you show me how this code should be modified in order to draw resamples of size 5 with replacement from the first sample and separate resamples of size 6 from the second sample, so that bootstrap resampling would mimic the “separate samples” design that produced the original data?
EDIT2 :
Hack deleted as it was a wrong solution. Instead one has to use the argument strata of the boot function :
total <- c(x,y)
id <- as.factor(c(rep("x",length(x)),rep("y",length(y))))
b <- boot(total, diff, strata=id, R = 10000)
...
Be aware you're not going to get even close to a correct estimate of your p.value :
x <- c(1.4,2.3,2.9,1.5,1.1)
y <- c(23.7,26.6,28.5,14.2,17.9,24.3)
total <- c(x,y)
b <- boot(total, diff, strata=id, R = 10000)
ci <- boot.ci(b)
p.value <- sum(b$t>=b$t0)/b$R
> p.value
[1] 0.5162
How would you explain a p-value of 0.51 for two samples where all values of the second are higher than the highest value of the first?
The above code is fine to get a -biased- estimate of the confidence interval, but the significance testing about the difference should be done by permutation over the complete dataset.
Following John, I think the appropriate way to use bootstrap to test if the sums of these two different populations are significantly different is as follows:
x <- c(1.4,2.3,2.9,1.5,1.1)
y <- c(23.7,26.6,28.5,14.2,17.9,24.3)
b_x <- boot(x, sum, R = 10000)
b_y <- boot(y, sum, R = 10000)
z<-(b_x$t0-b_y$t0)/sqrt(var(b_x$t[,1])+var(b_y$t[,1]))
pnorm(z)
So we can clearly reject the null that they are the same population. I may have missed a degree of freedom adjustment, I am not sure how bootstrapping works in that regard, but such an adjustment will not change your results drastically.
While the actual soil beds could be considered a stratified variable in some instances this is not one of them. You only have the one manipulation, between the groups of plants. Therefore, your null hypothesis is that they really do come from the exact same population. Treating the items as if they're from a single set of 11 samples is the correct way to bootstrap in this case.
If you have two plots, and in each plot tried the different fertilizers over different seasons in a counterbalanced fashion then the plots would be statified samples and you'd want to treat them as such. But that isn't the case here.