I'm trying to calculate the weighted average of a statistic sample (vector) in R using this form:
The function takes a vector and the weight is adjusted according by a second parameter (1 - 3), which are:
where s is the standard deviation.
I've adjusted the weight accordingly if the parameter is 1 or 3 using else-if's, but I'm having trouble with the 2nd one given that there is criteria to meet...
I've been calculating X - xBar as a vector: m = x-mean(x)
I've been calculating s with an R function: s = sd(x)
My query is regarding how "the meeting of the conditions should be programmed" in the 2nd critera. So far I have an if for each condition, but...
When calculating the weighted average, (taking the top one as an eg), does each element of the x vector (m/s) need to be less than 1? or do I need to test each element and assign a weight from the 3 conditions accordingly?
eg. if the first elements answer was less than 1, assign a weight or 1, but second elements answer was inbetween 1 and 2, assign it a weight of 0.5?
I hope this makes sense. In R it throws a warning message saying the logic is only comparing the first element of the vector... so thats what raised the question.
Thanks in advance.
To avoid the warning message while staying reasonably efficient, you probably want to use ifelse rather than if and else, perhaps in something like
m <- mean(x)
s <- sd(x)
absstandardx <- abs( (x - m) / s )
w2 <- ifelse( absstandardx < 1, 1, ifelse( absstandardx < 2, 0.5, 0 ) )
weightedmean2 <- sum(w2 * x) / sum(w2)
Related
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)
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.
Setup For the purposes of my simulation, I'm generating a list of B=2000 elements, with each element being the output of a permutation procedure in which I first permute the rows of a 200x8000 matrix and for each column, I calculate the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistic between the first and second 100 rows (you can think of the first 100 rows as data from one group and the second 100 rows as data from another group).
Question This process takes a very long time (about 30-40 minutes) to generate the list. Is there a much faster way? In the future, I'd like to increase B to a larger value.
Code
B=2000
n.row=200; n.col=8000
#Generate sample data
samp.dat = matrix(rnorm(n.row*n.col),nrow=n.row)
perm.KS.list = NULL
for (b in 1:B){
#permute the rows
perm.dat.tmp = samp.dat[sample(nrow(samp.dat)),]
#Compute the permutation-based test statistics
perm.KS.list[[b]]= apply(perm.dat.tmp,2,function(y) ks.test.stat(y[1:100],y[101:200]))
}
#Modified KS-test function (from base package)
ks.test.stat <- function(x,y){
x <- x[!is.na(x)]
n <- length(x)
y <- y[!is.na(y)]
n.x <- as.double(n)
n.y <- length(y)
w <- c(x, y)
z <- cumsum(ifelse(order(w) <= n.x, 1/n.x, -1/n.y))
z <- z[c(which(diff(sort(w)) != 0), n.x + n.y)] #exclude ties
STATISTIC <- max(abs(z))
return(STATISTIC)
}
The 1:B loop has several places to optimize, but I agree that the real consumer is that inner function. Because you're simulating your well-behaved bootstrap samples, you can make two simplifying assumptions that the general base function can't:
There aren't missing values. This obviates the is.na() adjustments
The two sides (ie, x & y) have the same number of elements, so you don't need to count them separately. instead of splitting y in the loop, and them joining them back in the function (into w), just keep it together. The balanced sides also permit simplifications like remove the ifelse() clause. It produces a bunch of 0/1s, which are rescaled to -1/1s with integer arithmetic.
The function is reduced, which saves about 25% of the time. I added integers, instead of doubles inside cumsum().
ks.test.stat.balanced <- function(w){
n <- as.integer(length(w) * .5)
# z <- cumsum(ifelse(order(w) <= n, 1L, -1L)) / n
z <- cumsum((order(w) <= n)*2L - 1L) / n
# z <- z[c(which(diff(sort(w)) != 0), n + n)] #exclude ties
return( max(abs(z)) )
}
Ties shouldn't occur often with your gaussian rng, and the diff(sort(.)) is very expensive. If you're willing to remove that protection, the time is reduced by about 65%.
If you move the equation for z into abs(), it saves a little time over all those reps. I kept it separate above, so it's easier to read.
edit in case of an unbalanced simulation I'd recommend you:
still keep out the is.na,
still pass w,
still keep as much as possible in integer, not numeric, but
now include arguments n1 & n2 for the two group sizes.
Also, experiment w/ precalculating 1/n before cumsum() to avoid a lot of expensive divisions. Try to think of other math-y ways to extract calculations from an inner loop so it occurs less frequently.
Forgive me if this has been asked before (I feel it must have, but could not find precisely what I am looking for).
Have can I draw one element of a vector of whole numbers (from 1 through, say, 10) using a probability function that specifies different chances of the elements. If I want equal propabilities I use runif() to get a number between 1 and 10:
ceiling(runif(1,1,10))
How do I similarly sample from e.g. the exponential distribution to get a number between 1 and 10 (such that 1 is much more likely than 10), or a logistic probability function (if I want a sigmoid increasing probability from 1 through 10).
The only "solution" I can come up with is first to draw e6 numbers from the say sigmoid distribution and then scale min and max to 1 and 10 - but this looks clumpsy.
UPDATE:
This awkward solution (and I dont feel it very "correct") would go like this
#Draw enough from a distribution, here exponential
x <- rexp(1e3)
#Scale probs to e.g. 1-10
scaler <- function(vector, min, max){
(((vector - min(vector)) * (max - min))/(max(vector) - min(vector))) + min
}
x_scale <- scaler(x,1,10)
#And sample once (and round it)
round(sample(x_scale,1))
Are there not better solutions around ?
I believe sample() is what you are looking for, as #HubertL mentioned in the comments. You can specify an increasing function (e.g. logit()) and pass the vector you want to sample from v as an input. You can then use the output of that function as a vector of probabilities p. See the code below.
logit <- function(x) {
return(exp(x)/(exp(x)+1))
}
v <- c(seq(1,10,1))
p <- logit(seq(1,10,1))
sample(v, 1, prob = p, replace = TRUE)
For a game design issue, I need to better inspect binomial distributions. Using R, I need to build a two dimensional table that - given a fixed parameters 'pool' (the number of dice rolled), 'sides' (the number of sides of the die) has:
In rows --> minimum for a success (ranging from 0 to sides, it's a discrete distribution)
In columns --> number of successes (ranging from 0 to pool)
I know how to calculate it as a single task, but I'm not sure on how to iterate to fill the entire table
EDIT: I forgot to say that I want to calculate the probability p of gaining at least the number of successes.
Ok, i think this could be a simple solution. It has ratio of successes on rows and success thresholds on dice roll (p) on columns.
poolDistribution <- function(n, sides=10, digits=2, roll.Under=FALSE){
m <- 1:sides
names(m) <- paste(m,ifelse(roll.Under,"-", "+"),sep="")
s <- 1:n
names(s) <- paste(s,n,sep="/")
sapply(m, function(m.value) round((if(roll.Under) (1 - pbinom(s - 1, n, (m.value)/sides))*100 else (1 - pbinom(s - 1, n, (sides - m.value + 1)/sides))*100), digits=digits))
This gets you half of the way.
If you are new to R, you might miss out on the fact that a very powerful feature is that you can use a vector of values as an index to another vector. This makes part of the problem trivially easy:
pool <- 3
sides <- 20 # <cough>D&D<cough>
# you need to strore the values somewhere, use a vector
NumberOfRollsPerSide <- rep(0, sides)
names(NumberOfRollsPerSide) <- 1:sides # this will be useful in table
## Repeast so long as there are still zeros
## ie, so long as there is a side that has not come up yet
while (any(NumberOfRollsPerSide == 0)) {
# roll once
oneRoll <- sample(1:sides, pool, TRUE)
# add (+1) to each sides' total rolls
# note that you can use the roll outcome to index the vector. R is great.
NumberOfRollsPerSide[oneRoll] <- NumberOfRollsPerSide[oneRoll] + 1
}
# These are your results:
NumberOfRollsPerSide
All you have left to do now is count, for each side, in which roll number it first came up.