Write a function that will allow the user
to input a vector of numerical values,
with no missing values "the data", and
a vector of 1's and 2's, representing
two different groups that you want to compare.
"the treatments". The number of 1's and 2's does not need to be equal. You may assume
for now, that treatment 2 has a higher mean
than treatment 1.
The function will create the randomization
distribution of differences, and plot them
in a histogram. It will use the distribution
to calculate the p-value -- the chance that
the observed difference (or higher) could have
occurred by chance. It will print the observed
difference and the p-value, both
rounded to 4 digits, using text:
"The observed difference is xxxx and the
p-value is xxxx"
Using these two vectors I have determined how to get the differences but do not know how to put it into a function and implement a randomization test.
dat<- c(1,4,2,5,2,4,8,6,9,7)
trt <- c(1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2)
How to find the observed difference:
obsdiff <- mean(dat[trt == 2]) - mean(dat[trt == 1])
How to 'shuffle the treatments':
trtsh <- sample(trt, size = length(trt))
How to find a difference simulated
under the null hypothesis,
i.e., difference in means for shuffled
treatment 2 minus treatment 1:
simdiff <- mean(dat[trtsh == 2]) - mean(dat[trtsh == 1])
The p-value using these vectors should be .011
dat<- c(1,4,2,5,2,4,8,6,9,7)
trt <- c(1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2)
In general, it is a good idea to coerce all of your data into a data frame, a la
data.frame(dat, trt) -> mydata
Now you can calculate your obsdiff as
obsdiff <- mean(mydata$dat[mydata$trt == 2]) - mean(mydata$dat[mydata$trt == 1])
Here's one way you can shuffle your treatment values using a for-loop:
simdiff <- vector(length=10000)
for(j in 1:10000){
cat(paste(j, '\n') )
trtsh <- sample(trt)
mydatash <- data.frame(dat, trtsh)
simdiff[j] <- mean(mydatash$dat[mydatash$trt == 2]) - mean(mydatash$dat[mydatash$trt == 1])
}
For help with plotting, see ?hist (e.g. hist(simdiff)).
Now, you just need to wrap the pieces above into a function that calculates the quantile of simdiff where obsdiff >= simdiff and outputs the text.
Related
I want to obtain a dataframe with simulated values which have a specific correlation to each other.
I need to use this function, but in the returned output there are also negative values, which do not have meaning for my purposes:
COR <- function (n, xmean, xsd, ymean, ysd, correlation) {
x <- rnorm(n)
y <- rnorm(n)
z <- correlation * scale(x)[,1] + sqrt(1 - correlation^2) *
scale(resid(lm(y ~ x)))[,1]
xresult <- xmean + xsd * scale(x)[,1]
yresult <- ymean + ysd * z
data.frame(x=xresult,y=yresult)
}
Please note that my question starts from this previous post (currently closed):
another similar discussion
Is there a method able to exclude from the final output all the rows which have at least one negative value? (in another terms, x and y must be always positives).
I spent many hours without any concrete result.....
Filtering rows which have at least one negative value can be done with the apply function, e.g.
df <- simcor(100, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0.8)
filter <- apply(df, 1, function(x) sum(x < 0) > 0)
df <- df[!filter,]
plot(df)
First, I create a dataframe df from your funcion. Then, I apply the function sum(x < 0) > 0 rowwise to the dataframe (the second argument of apply, 1 indicates to go along the first dimension of the dataframe or array). This will create a logical vector that is TRUE for every row with at least one negative value. Subsetting the dataframe with the inverse of that (!filter) leaves you with all rows that have no negative values.
UPDATE:
Seems like the package VineCopula offers functions to create distributions with a given correlation. However, I did not dive into the math as deep so I was not able to fully grasp how copulas (i.e. multivariate probability distributions) work. Using this package, you can at least create e.g. two gaussian distributions.
library(VineCopula)
BC <- BiCop(family = 1, par = 0.9)
sim <- BiCopSim(N = 1000, obj = BC)
cor(sim[,1], sim[,2])
plot(sim)
You might be able to then scale the resulting matrix to achieve a certain standard derivation.
I'm trying to simulate a wider population from a small one in R as follows:
idata <- subset(data, select=c(WT, AGE, HT, BFP, SEX) )
M= cor(idata)
mu <- sapply(idata, mean)
sd <- sapply(idata, stdev)
sigma=cor2cov(M, sd)
simulation <- as.data.frame(mvrnorm(1000, mu, sigma))
But the problems is, for SEX, the code will consider a continuous distribution, while it has to be binary, and effects of sex has to be either fully considered (SEX==1), or not at all (SEX==0). I'd appreciate any help with this regard.
Thanks
What you should do is consider that your data consists of two sub-populations, and then draw data from them, based on their proportions.
So, first estimate the proportions, pi_m and pi_f (= 1 - pi_m), which are the proportion of SEX == 0 and SEX == 1. This should be something like
pi_m = sum(idata$SEX == 1)/ nrow(idata)
Then estimate parameters for the two populations, mu_f, mu_m, sigma_f and sigma_m, which are mean and covariance parameters for the two SEX populations (now without the SEX variable).
The first draw a random number r <- runif(1), if this is less than equal to pi_m then generate a sample from N(mu_m, sigma_s) else from N(mu_f, sigma_f).
You can do this step 1000 times to get 1000 samples from your distribution.
Of course, you can vector this, by first generating 1000 samples from runif. For example
n_m <- sum(runif(1000) <= pi_m)
n_f <- 1000 - n_m
X_m <- rmvnorm(n_m, mu_m, sigma_m)
X_f <- rmvnorm(n_f, mu_f, sigma_f)
X <- rbind(X_m, X_f)
I am trying to calculate a regression variable based on a range of variables in my data set. I would like the regression variable (ei: Threshold 1) to be calculated using a different variable set in each iteration of running the regression.
Aim to collected SSR values for each threshold range, and thus identify the ideal threshold based on the data.
Data (df) variables: Yield, Prec, Price, 0C, 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, 7C, 8C, 9C, 10C
Each loop calculates "thresholds" by selecting a different "b" each time.
a <- df$0C
b <- df$1C
Threshold1 <- (a-b)
Threshold2 <- (b)
Where "b" would be changing in each loop, ranging from 1C to 9C.
Each individual threshold set (1 and 2) should be used to run a regression, and save the SSR for comparison with the subsequent regression utilizing thresholds based on a new "b" value (ranging from 1C TO 9C)
Regression:
reg <- lm(log(Yield)~Threshold1+Threshold2+log(Price)+prec+I(prec^2),data=df)
for each loop of the Regression, I vary the components of calculating thresholds in the following manner:
Current approach is centered around the following code:
df <- read.csv("Data.csv",header=TRUE)
names(df)
0C-9Cvarlist <- names(df)[9:19]
ssr.vec <- matrix(,21,1)
for(i in 1:length(varlist)){
a <- df$0C
b <- df$[i]
Threshold1 <- (a-b)
Threshold2 <- (b)
reg <- lm(log(Yield)~Threshold1+Threshold2+log(Price)+prec+I(prec^2),data=df)
r2 <- summary(reg)$r.squared
ssr.vec[i,] <- c(varlist,r2)
}
colnames(ssr.vec) <- c("varlist","r2")
I am failing to achieve the desired result with the above approach.
Thank you.
I can spot quite a few mistakes...
You need to add variables of interest (Threshold1 anf Threshold2) to the data in the regression. Also, I think that you need to select varlist[i] and not varlist to create your ssr.vec. You need 2 columns to your ssr.vec which is a matrix, so you should call it matrix. You also cannot use something like df$[i] to extract a column! Why is the matrix of length 21 ?! Change the column name to C0,..,C9 and not 0C,..,9C.
For future reference, solve the simple errors before asking question... and include error messages in your post!
This should do the job:
df <- read.csv("Data.csv",header=TRUE)
names(df)[8:19] = paste0("C",0:10)
varlist <- names(df)[9:19]
ssr.vec <- matrix(,21,2)
for(i in 1:length(varlist)){
a <- df$C0
b <- df[,i+9]
df$Threshold1 <- (a-b)
df$Threshold2 <- (b)
reg <- lm(log(Yield)~Threshold1+Threshold2+log(Price)+prec+I(prec^2),data=df)
r2 <- summary(reg)$r.squared
ssr.vec[i,] <- c(varlist[i],r2)
}
colnames(ssr.vec) <- c("varlist","r2")
I want to draw normal random numbers in an array of order ((100*8)*5000) with a specific Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (S) but I want them to be only within the range M±3S, so that I don't have any outliers in my array exceeding those limits.
Any Suggestion? I want to write a program in R based on this array for some simulation studies. I am using following R Code to generate my Data Set:
for(i in 1:5000){
for(j in 1:8){
Dat[,j,i]=rnorm(100,mean=muu[j],sd=sigma[j])
}
}
Now, We want to get rid of those values which are higher than muu±3sigma in the above data. Definitely, We have to replace discarded values with fresh values so that the dimension of the Dat array keep intact.
First Solution
Here is a start but I bet there is a more elegant solution.
First generate a sample next step is to subset it to your desired values. Of course you have to adjust values to your desire.
set.seed(123)
rs <- rnorm(10000, mean = 10, sd = 3)
rs1 <- rs[ rs >= -19 & rs <= 19 ]
Second (better) solution
I think my first solutions didn't work so well. I have just written some code that might be perfect for your purposes. Here are the steps.
create an array of NAs with the required dimensions
fill it with random numbers
create a logical vector where TRUEs are for the desired conditions
subset the data based on that vector and replace the values where TRUE is TRUE (pardon my words game) with the mean used to generate samples
data <- array(NA, dim = c(100, 8, 5000))
for(i in 1:5000){
data[ , , i] <- rnorm(800, 3, 1)
}
bound <- 3 + c(-1, 1)*3*1
pr <- data <= bound[1] | data >= bound[2]
data[pr] <- 3
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.