If I do an autocorrelation test in R (acf), I get a great graph, and the horizontal lines show the cutoff of significance.
acf also prints out the individual lag values in the console, however, here I can't see which are significant. Is there an easy way to do that without looking at the graph?
So basically for this we need to know the cutoff value. By writing acf and stats:::plot.acf you can see that it might be different for different parameter values, but for default values here is what you should use:
set.seed(123)
x <- arima.sim(list(ar = 0.5), 100)
r <- acf(x, plot = FALSE)$acf
which(abs(r)[-1] >= qnorm(1 - 0.05 / 2) / sqrt(length(x)))
# [1] 1 2 3 9 10 12 13
where 0.05 is the significance level in this case.
Related
Problem
I have a dataframe that composes of > 5 variables at any time and am trying to do a K-Means of it. Because K-Means is greatly affected by outliers, I've been trying to look for a few hours on how to calculate and remove multivariate outliers. Most examples demonstrated are with 2 variables.
Possible Solutions Explored
mvoutlier - Kind user here noted that mvoutlier may be what I need.
Another Outlier Detection Method - Poster here commented with a mix of R functions to generate an ordered list of outliers.
Issues thus Far
Regarding mvoutlier, I was unable to generate a result because it noted my dataset contained negatives and it could not work because of that. I'm not sure how to alter my data to only positive since I need negatives in the set I am working with.
Regarding Another Outlier Detection Method I was able to come up with a list of outliers, but am unsure how to exclude them from the current data set. Also, I do know that these calculations are done after K-Means, and thus I probably will apply the math prior to doing K-Means.
Minimal Verifiable Example
Unfortunately, the dataset I'm using is off-limits to be shown to anyone, so what you'll need is any random data set with more than 3 variables. The code below is code converted from the Another Outlier Detection Method post to work with my data. It should work dynamically if you have a random data set as well. But it should have enough data where cluster center amount should be okay with 5.
clusterAmount <- 5
cluster <- kmeans(dataFrame, centers = clusterAmount, nstart = 20)
centers <- cluster$centers[cluster$cluster, ]
distances <- sqrt(rowSums(clusterDataFrame - centers)^2)
m <- tapply(distances, cluster$cluster, mean)
d <- distances/(m[cluster$cluster])
# 1% outliers
outliers <- d[order(d, decreasing = TRUE)][1:(nrow(clusterDataFrame) * .01)]
Output: A list of outliers ordered by their distance away from the center they reside in I believe. The issue then is getting these results paired up to the respective rows in the data frame and removing them so I can start my K-Means procedure. (Note, while in the example I used K-Means prior to removing outliers, I'll make sure to take the necessary steps and remove outliers before K-Means upon solution).
Question
With Another Outlier Detection Method example in place, how do I pair the results with the information in my current data frame to exclude those rows before doing K-Means?
I don't know if this is exactly helpful but if your data is multivariate normal you may want to try out a Wilks (1963) based method. Wilks showed that the mahalanobis distances of multivariate normal data follow a Beta distribution. We can take advantage of this (iris Sepal data used as an example):
test.dat <- iris[,-c(1,2))]
Wilks.function <- function(dat){
n <- nrow(dat)
p <- ncol(dat)
# beta distribution
u <- n * mahalanobis(dat, center = colMeans(dat), cov = cov(dat))/(n-1)^2
w <- 1 - u
F.stat <- ((n-p-1)/p) * (1/w-1) # computing F statistic
p <- 1 - round( pf(F.stat, p, n-p-1), 3) # p value for each row
cbind(w, F.stat, p)
}
plot(test.dat,
col = "blue",
pch = c(15,16,17)[as.numeric(iris$Species)])
dat.rows <- Wilks.function(test.dat); head(dat.rows)
# w F.stat p
#[1,] 0.9888813 0.8264127 0.440
#[2,] 0.9907488 0.6863139 0.505
#[3,] 0.9869330 0.9731436 0.380
#[4,] 0.9847254 1.1400985 0.323
#[5,] 0.9843166 1.1710961 0.313
#[6,] 0.9740961 1.9545687 0.145
Then we can simply find which rows of our multivariate data are significantly different from the beta distribution.
outliers <- which(dat.rows[,"p"] < 0.05)
points(test.dat[outliers,],
col = "red",
pch = c(15,16,17)[as.numeric(iris$Species[outliers])])
My dataframe contains sampling means of 500 samples of size 100 each. Below is the snapshot. I need to calculate the confidence interval at 90/95/99 for mean.
head(Means_df)
Means
1 14997
2 11655
3 12471
4 12527
5 13810
6 13099
I am using the below code but only getting the confidence interval for one row only. Can anyone help me with the code?
tint <- matrix(NA, nrow = dim(Means_df)[2], ncol = 2)
for (i in 1:dim(Means_df)[2]) {
temp <- t.test(Means_df[, i], conf.level = 0.9)
tint[i, ] <- temp$conf.int
}
colnames(tint) <- c("lcl", "ucl")
For any single mean, e. g. 14997, you can not compute a 95%-CI without knowing the variance or the standard deviation of the data, the mean was computed from. If you have access to the standard deviation of each sample, you can than compute the standard error of the mean and with that, easily the 95%-CI. Apparently, you lack the Information needed for the task.
Means_df is a data frame with 500 rows and 1 column. Therefore
dim(Means_df)[2]
will give the value 1.
Which is why you only get one value.
Solve the problem by using dim(Means_df)[1] or even better nrow(Means_df) instead of dim(Means_df)[2].
I'm looking into GoF (goodness of fit) testing, and wanted to see if the quantiles of a vector of data followed the expected frequency of a normal distribution N(0, 1), and before running the chi square test, I generated these frequencies for the normal distribution:
< -2 SD's (standard deviations), between -2 and -1 SD's, between -1 and 0 SD's, between 0 and 1 SD's, between 1 and 2 SD's, and more than 2 SD's.
To do so I took the long route:
(Normal_distr <- c(pnorm(-2), pnorm(-1) - pnorm(-2), pnorm(0) - pnorm(-1),
pnorm(1) - pnorm(0), pnorm(2) - pnorm(1), pnorm(2, lower.tail = F)))
[1] 0.02275013 0.13590512 0.34134475 0.34134475 0.13590512 0.02275013
I see that the symmetry allows me to cut down the length of the code, but isn't there an easier way... something (I don't think this will work, but the idea of...) like pnorm(-2:-1) returning an identical value to pnorm(-1) - pnorm(-2) = 0.13590512?
Question: Is there an R function that calculates the area under the normal curve between quantiles so that we can pass a vector such as c(-3:3) through it, as opposed to subtracting pnorm()'s of adjacent standard deviations or other quantiles?
I'n not sure if there is a specific function to do this, but you can do it pretty simply like so:
#Get difference between adjacent quantiles
diff(pnorm(-2:-1))
[1] 0.1359051
#Get area under normal curve from -2 to 2 sd's:
sum(diff(pnorm(-2:2)))
[1] 0.9544997
Let me begin by saying this is a class assignment for an intro to R course.
First, in VGAM why are there dparetoI, ParetoI, pparetoI, qparetoI & rparetoI?
Are they not the same things?
My problem:
I would like to generate 50 random numbers in a pareto distribution.
I would like the range to be 1 – 60 but I also need to have 30% of the values <= 4.
Using VGAM I have tried a variety of functions and combinations of pareto from what I could find in documentation as well as a few things online.
I experimented with fit, quantiles and forcing a sequence from examples I found but I'm new and didn't make much sense of it.
I’ve been using this:
alpha <- 1 # location
k <- 2 # shape
mySteps <- rpareto(50,alpha,k)
range(mySteps)
str(mySteps[mySteps <= 4])
After enough iterations, the range will be acceptable but entries <= 4 are never close.
So my questions are:
Am I using the right pareto function?
If not, can you point me in the right direction?
If so, do I just keep running it until the “right” data comes up?
Thanks for the guidance.
So reading the Wikipedia entry for Pareto Distribution, you can see that the CDF of the Pareto distribution is given by:
FX(x) = 1 - (xm/x)α
The CDF gives the probability that X (your random variable) < x (a given value). You want Pareto distributions where
Prob(X < 4) ≡ FX(4) = 0.3
or
0.3 = 1 - (xm/4)α
This defines a relation between xm and α
xm = 4 * (0.7)1/α
In R code:
library(VGAM)
set.seed(1)
alpha <- 1
k <- 4 * (0.7)^(1/alpha)
X <- rpareto(50,k,alpha)
quantile(X,0.3) # confirm that 30% are < 4
# 30%
# 3.891941
Plot the histogram and the distribution
hist(X, breaks=c(1:60,Inf),xlim=c(1,60))
x <- 1:60
lines(x,dpareto(x,k,alpha), col="red")
If you repeat this process for different alpha, you will get different distribution functions, but in all cases ~30% of the sample will be < 4. The reason it is only approximately 30% is that you have a finite sample size (50).
As an assignment I had to develop and algorithm and generate a samples for a given geometric distribution with PMF
Using the inverse transform method, I came up with the following expression for generating the values:
Where U represents a value, or n values depending on the size of the sample, drawn from a Unif(0,1) distribution and p is 0.3 as stated in the PMF above.
I have the algorithm, the implementation in R and I already generated QQ Plots to visually assess the adjustment of the empirical values to the theoretical ones (generated with R), i.e., if the generated sample follows indeed the geometric distribution.
Now I wanted to submit the generated sample to a goodness of fit test, namely the Chi-square, yet I'm having trouble doing this in R.
[I think this was moved a little hastily, in spite of your response to whuber's question, since I think before solving the 'how do I write this algorithm in R' problem, it's probably more important to deal with the 'what you're doing is not the best approach to your problem' issue (which certainly belongs where you posted it). Since it's here, I will deal with the 'doing it in R' aspect, but I would urge to you go back an ask about the second question (as a new post).]
Firstly the chi-square test is a little different depending on whether you test
H0: the data come from a geometric distribution with parameter p
or
H0: the data come from a geometric distribution with parameter 0.3
If you want the second, it's quite straightforward. First, with the geometric, if you want to use the chi-square approximation to the distribution of the test statistic, you will need to group adjacent cells in the tail. The 'usual' rule - much too conservative - suggests that you need an expected count in every bin of at least 5.
I'll assume you have a nice large sample size. In that case, you'll have many bins with substantial expected counts and you don't need to worry so much about keeping it so high, but you will still need to choose how you will bin the tail (whether you just choose a single cut-off above which all values are grouped, for example).
I'll proceed as if n were say 1000 (though if you're testing your geometric random number generation, that's pretty low).
First, compute your expected counts:
dgeom(0:20,.3)*1000
[1] 300.0000000 210.0000000 147.0000000 102.9000000 72.0300000 50.4210000
[7] 35.2947000 24.7062900 17.2944030 12.1060821 8.4742575 5.9319802
[13] 4.1523862 2.9066703 2.0346692 1.4242685 0.9969879 0.6978915
[19] 0.4885241 0.3419669 0.2393768
Warning, dgeom and friends goes from x=0, not x=1; while you can shift the inputs and outputs to the R functions, it's much easier if you subtract 1 from all your geometric values and test that. I will proceed as if your sample has had 1 subtracted so that it goes from 0.
I'll cut that off at the 15th term (x=14), and group 15+ into its own group (a single group in this case). If you wanted to follow the 'greater than five' rule of thumb, you'd cut it off after the 12th term (x=11). In some cases (such as smaller p), you might want to split the tail across several bins rather than one.
> expec <- dgeom(0:14,.3)*1000
> expec <- c(expec, 1000-sum(expec))
> expec
[1] 300.000000 210.000000 147.000000 102.900000 72.030000 50.421000
[7] 35.294700 24.706290 17.294403 12.106082 8.474257 5.931980
[13] 4.152386 2.906670 2.034669 4.747562
The last cell is the "15+" category. We also need the probabilities.
Now we don't yet have a sample; I'll just generate one:
y <- rgeom(1000,0.3)
but now we want a table of observed counts:
(x <- table(factor(y,levels=0:14),exclude=NULL))
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 <NA>
292 203 150 96 79 59 47 25 16 10 6 7 0 2 5 3
Now you could compute the chi-square directly and then calculate the p-value:
> (chisqstat <- sum((x-expec)^2/expec))
[1] 17.76835
(pval <- pchisq(chisqstat,15,lower.tail=FALSE))
[1] 0.2750401
but you can also get R to do it:
> chisq.test(x,p=expec/1000)
Chi-squared test for given probabilities
data: x
X-squared = 17.7683, df = 15, p-value = 0.275
Warning message:
In chisq.test(x, p = expec/1000) :
Chi-squared approximation may be incorrect
Now the case for unspecified p is similar, but (to my knowledge) you can no longer get chisq.test to do it directly, you have to do it the first way, but you have to estimate the parameter from the data (by maximum likelihood or minimum chi-square), and then test as above but you have one fewer degree of freedom for estimating the parameter.
See the example of doing a chi-square for a Poisson with estimated parameter here; the geometric follows the much same approach as above, with the adjustments as at the link (dealing with the unknown parameter, including the loss of 1 degree of freedom).
Let us assume you've got your randomly-generated variates in a vector x. You can do the following:
x <- rgeom(1000,0.2)
x_tbl <- table(x)
x_val <- as.numeric(names(x_tbl))
x_df <- data.frame(count=as.numeric(x_tbl), value=x_val)
# Expand to fill in "gaps" in the values caused by 0 counts
all_x_val <- data.frame(value = 0:max(x_val))
x_df <- merge(all_x_val, x_df, by="value", all.x=TRUE)
x_df$count[is.na(x_df$count)] <- 0
# Get theoretical probabilities
x_df$eprob <- dgeom(x_df$val, 0.2)
# Chi-square test: once with asymptotic dist'n,
# once with bootstrap evaluation of chi-sq test statistic
chisq.test(x=x_df$count, p=x_df$eprob, rescale.p=TRUE)
chisq.test(x=x_df$count, p=x_df$eprob, rescale.p=TRUE,
simulate.p.value=TRUE, B=10000)
There's a "goodfit" function described as "Goodness-of-fit Tests for Discrete Data" in package "vcd".
G.fit <- goodfit(x, type = "nbinomial", par = list(size = 1))
I was going to use the code you had posted in an earlier question, but it now appears that you have deleted that code. I find that offensive. Are you using this forum to gather homework answers and then defacing it to remove the evidence? (Deleted questions can still be seen by those of us with sufficient rep, and the interface prevents deletion of question with upvoted answers so you should not be able to delete this one.)
Generate a QQ Plot for testing a geometrically distributed sample
--- question---
I have a sample of n elements generated in R with
sim.geometric <- function(nvals)
{
p <- 0.3
u <- runif(nvals)
ceiling(log(u)/log(1-p))
}
for which i want to test its distribution, specifically if it indeed follows a geometric distribution. I want to generate a QQ PLot but have no idea how to.
--------reposted answer----------
A QQ-plot should be a straight line when compared to a "true" sample drawn from a geometric distribution with the same probability parameter. One gives two vectors to the functions which essentially compares their inverse ECDF's at each quantile. (Your attempt is not particularly successful:)
sim.res <- sim.geometric(100)
sim.rgeom <- rgeom(100, 0.3)
qqplot(sim.res, sim.rgeom)
Here I follow the lead of the authors of qqplot's help page (which results in flipping that upper curve around the line of identity):
png("QQ.png")
qqplot(qgeom(ppoints(100),prob=0.3), sim.res,
main = expression("Q-Q plot for" ~~ {G}[n == 100]))
dev.off()
---image not included---
You can add a "line of good fit" by plotting a line through through the 25th and 75th percentile points for each distribution. (I added a jittering feature to this to get a better idea where the "probability mass" was located:)
sim.res <- sim.geometric(500)
qqplot(jitter(qgeom(ppoints(500),prob=0.3)), jitter(sim.res),
main = expression("Q-Q plot for" ~~ {G}[n == 100]), ylim=c(0,max( qgeom(ppoints(500),prob=0.3),sim.res )),
xlim=c(0,max( qgeom(ppoints(500),prob=0.3),sim.res )))
qqline(sim.res, distribution = function(p) qgeom(p, 0.3),
prob = c(0.25, 0.75), col = "red")