background
i have some private survey data that contains a column of confidential information: the geographic location of the survey respondents. under no circumstances can this information be released.
as is common in survey research, in order for users to correctly calculate a variance on my survey data set, those users will either need that geographic location (unacceptable) or, alternatively, a set of replicate weights. i can create that set of replicate weights; however, it's quite easy to look at the correlations between those weights and back-calculate which of the survey respondents share the same geographic location. that is also unacceptable.
to help me with this question, you don't have to be familiar with replicate weights -- just think of them as a few columns of strongly-correlated clustered data.
i understand that if i want to maintain that clustering, an evil data user will always have semi-decent guesses at who shares geographic locations; i just want to make that guessing game less precise. on the un-obfuscated replicate weights, an evil data user can figure out 100% of the cases.
request
i am looking for a technique that
prevents the public use file users from easily deducing the shared geographic location off of the correlations between my replicate weights variables
does not obliterate the correlations between my columns of data (the replicate weights variables)
can be implemented on an R data.frame object without a major time investment
i say shared because the evil user might not know where the location is, but they might know if two survey respondents are from the same location -- an unacceptable possibility.
what i have tried
i don't really want to re-invent the wheel here. i am looking for r syntax, an r package, or anything else that would be relatively straightforward to implement. i've found one, two, three, four papers describing techniques that would all be suitable for my purposes; unfortunately, none of the authors have been willing to share actual code to implement them.
i can do simple things like add and subtract random values to my replicate weights columns according to a normal distribution, but i'd prefer to rely on the work of someone who understands privacy issues better than i do.
thanks!!!!
i have written this nine-step tutorial to walk through the process in an attempt to answer my own question. i am not an expert in the field of privacy/confidentiality and would love to hear both feedback about this idea and also other ideas. thanks!
http://www.asdfree.com/2014/09/how-to-provide-variance-calculation-on.html
Related
I am a university student working on a research project, because of our local lockdown I cannot go into the field to collect observation data, I am therefore looking for an R package that will allow me to model the effects of competition when testing for ideal free distribution (IFD).
To give you a better idea of what I am looking for I have described the project in more detail below.
In my original dataset (which I received i.e., I did not collect the data myself) I have two patches (A,B) which received random treatments of food input (1:1, 2:1, 5:1). Under the ideal free distribution hypothesis species should distribute into the patches in accordance with the treatment ratios. This is not the case.
Under normal circumstances I would go into the field and observe behaviour of individuals in the patches to see if dominance affects distribution. Since we are in a lockdown I am unable to do so. I am hoping that there is a package out there that would allow me to model this scenario and help me investigate how competition affects IFD.
I have already found two packages called coexist and EcoVirtual but they model coexistence and extinction dynamics, whereas I want to investigate how competition might alter distribution between profitable patches when there is variation in the level of competition.
I am fairly new to R and creating my own package is beyond my skillset at this point, so I would appreciate the help.
I hope this makes sense and thanks in advance.
Wow, that's an odd place to find another researcher of IFD. I do not believe there are packages on R specifically about IFD. Its too specific and most models are relatively simple to estimate using common tests. For example, the input-matching rule you mentioned can be tested using a simple run-of-the-mill t-test, already included in base R.
What you have is not a coding problem per say, or even an statistical one. It is a biological problem. What ratio would you expect when animals are ideal (full knowledge of the environment), free (no movement costs), but with the presence of competition? Is this ratio equal to the ratio in your dataset? Sutherland,1983 suggests animals would undermatch.
I would love to discuss this at depth, given my PhD was in IFD, but I fear you hit the wrong forum.
I wish to share a dataset (largely time-series data) with a group of data scientists to explore the statistical relationships within the data (e.g. between variables). However, for confidentiality reasons, I am unable to share the original dataset and so I was wondering if I may be able to transform the data with some random transformation that I know but that the recipients won't. Is this a common practice? Is there an associated R package?
I have been exploring the use of synthetic datasets, and have looked at 'synthpop' but I have a challenge that seems slightly different. For example, I don't necessarily want the data to include fictional individuals that resemble the original file. Rather I'd prefer the value associated with a specific variable to be unclear (e.g. still numerical but also nonsensical) to the human viewer but still enable statistical analysis (e.g. despite the actual values being unclear, the relationships between variable 'x' and 'y' remain the same).
I have a feeling that this is probably quite a simple process (e.g. change names of variables, apply the same transformation across all variables), but I'm not a mathematician/statistician and so I don't want to violate underlying relationships through an inappropriate transformation.
Thanks!
I recently started to work with a huge dataset, provided by medical emergency
service. I have cca 25.000 spatial points of incidents.
I am searching books and internet for quite some time and am getting more and more confused about what to do and how to do it.
The points are, of course, very clustered. I calculated K, L and G function
for it and they confirm serious clustering.
I also have population point dataset - one point for every citizen, that is similarly clustered as incidents dataset (incidents happen to people, so there is a strong link between these two datasets).
I want to compare these two datasets to figure out, if they are similarly
distributed. I want to know, if there are places, where there are more
incidents, compared to population. In other words, I want to use population dataset to explain intensity and then figure out if the incident dataset corresponds to that intensity. The assumption is, that incidents should appear randomly regarding to population.
I want to get a plot of the region with information where there are more or less incidents than expected if the incidents were randomly happening to people.
How would you do it with R?
Should I use Kest or Kinhom to calculate K function?
I read the description, but still don't understand what is a basic difference
between them.
I tried using Kcross, but as I figured out, one of two datasets used
should be CSR - completely spatial random.
I also found Kcross.inhom, should I use that one for my data?
How can I get a plot (image) of incident deviations regarding population?
I hope I asked clearly.
Thank you for your time to read my question and
even more thanks if you can answer any of my questions.
Best regards!
Jernej
I do not have time to answer all your questions in full, but here are some pointers.
DISCLAIMER: I am a coauthor of the spatstat package and the book Spatial Point Patterns: Methodology and Applications with R so I have a preference for using these (and I genuinely believe these are the best tools for your problem).
Conceptual issue: How big is your study region and does it make sense to treat the points as distributed everywhere in the region or are they confined to be on the road network?
For now I will assume we can assume they are distributed anywhere.
A simple approach would be to estimate the population density using density.ppp and then fit a Poisson model to the incidents with the population density as the intensity using ppm. This would probably be a reasonable null model and if that fits the data well you can basically say that incidents happen "completely at random in space when controlling for the uneven population density". More info density.ppp and ppm are in chapters 6 and 9 of 1, respectively, and of course in the spatstat help files.
If you use summary statistics like the K/L/G/F/J-functions you should always use the inhom versions to take the population density into account. This is covered in chapter 7 of 1.
Also it could probably be interesting to see the relative risk (relrisk) if you combine all your points in to a marked point pattern with two types (background and incidents). See chapter 14 of 1.
Unfortunately, only chapters 3, 7 and 9 of 1 are availble as free to download sample chapters, but I hope you have access to it at your library or have the option of buying it.
I have time-series data of 12 consumers. The data corresponding to 12 consumers (named as a ... l) is
I want to cluster these consumers so that I may know which of the consumers have utmost similar consumption behavior. Accordingly, I found clustering method pamk, which automatically calculates the number of clusters in input data.
I assume that I have only two options to calculate the distance between any two time-series, i.e., Euclidean, and DTW. I tried both of them and I do get different clusters. Now the question is which one should I rely upon? and why?
When I use Eulidean distance I got following clusters:
and using DTW distance I got
Conclusion:
How will you decide which clustering approach is the best in this case?
Note: I have asked the same question on Cross-Validated also.
none of the timeseries above look similar to me. Do you see any pattern? Maybe there is no pattern?
the clustering visualizations indicate that there are no clusters, too. b and l appear to be the most unusual outliers; followed by d,e,h; but there are no clusters there.
Also try hierarchical clustering. The dendrogram may be more understandable.
But in either way, there may be no clusters. You need to be prepared for this outcome, and consider it a valid hypothesis. Double-check any result. As you have seen, pam will always return a result, and you have absolutely no means to decide which result is more "correct" than the other (most likely, neither is correct, and you should rely on neither, to answer your question).
To give a bit of the context, I am measuring the performance of virtual machines (VMs), or systems software in general, and usually want to compare different optimizations for performance problem. Performance is measured in absolute runtime for a number of benchmarks, and usually for a number of configurations of a VM variating over used number of CPU cores, different benchmark parameters, etc. To get reliable results, each configuration is measure like 100 times. Thus, I end up with quite a number of measurements for all kind of different parameters where I am usually interested in the speedup for all of them, comparing the VM with and the VM without a certain optimization.
What I currently do is to pick one specific series of measurements. Lets say the measurements for a VM with and without optimization (VM-norm/VM-opt) running benchmark A, on 1 core.
Since I want to compare the results of the different benchmarks and number of cores, I can not use absolute runtime, but need to normalize it somehow. Thus, I pair up the 100 measurements for benchmark A on 1 core for VM-norm with the corresponding 100 measurements of VM-opt to calculate the VM-opt/VM-norm ratios.
When I do that taking the measurements just in the order I got them, I obviously have quite a high variation in my 100 resulting VM-opt/VM-norm ratios. So, I thought, ok, let's assume the variation in my measurements come from non-deterministic effects and the same effects cause variation in the same way for VM-opt and VM-norm. So, naively, it should be ok to sort the measurements before pairing them up. And, as expected, that reduces the variation of course.
However, my half-knowledge tells me that is not the best way and perhaps not even correct.
Since I am eventually interested in the distribution of those ratios, to visualize them with beanplots, a colleague suggested to use the cartesian product instead of pairing sorted measurements. That sounds like it would account better for the random nature of two arbitrary measurements paired up for comparison. But, I am still wondering what a statistician would suggest for such a problem.
In the end, I am really interested to plot the distribution of ratios with R as bean or violin plots. Simple boxplots, or just mean+stddev tell me too few about what is going on. These distributions usually point at artifacts that are produced by the complex interaction on these much to complex computers, and that's what I am interested in.
Any pointers to approaches of how to work with and how to produce such ratios in a correct way a very welcome.
PS: This is a repost, the original was posted at https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/15947/how-to-normalize-benchmark-results-to-obtain-distribution-of-ratios-correctly
I found it puzzling that you got such a minimal response on "Cross Validated". This does not seem like a specific R question, but rather a request for how to design an analysis. Perhaps the audience there thought you were asking too broad a question, but if that is the case then the [R] forum is even worse, since we generally tackle problems where data is actually provided. We deal with the requests for implementation construction in our language. I agree that violin plots are preferred to boxplots for the examination of distributions (when there is sufficient data and I am not sure that 100 samples per group makes the grade in that instance), but in any case that means the "R answer" is that you just need to refer to the proper R help page:
library(lattice)
?xyplot
?panel.violin
Further comments would require more details and preferably some data examples constructed in R. You may want to refer to the page where "great question design is outlined".
One further graphical method: If you are interested in the ratios of two paired variates but do not want to "commit" to just x/y, then you can examine them by plotting and then plotting iso-ratio lines by repeatedly using abline(a=0, b= ). I think 100 samples is pretty "thin" for doing density estimates, but there are 2d density methods if you can gather more data.