I have a data set on which I would like to make a boxplot in R. I was able to do it simply (here I used just some sample data) by the following commands in R console:
x <- rnorm(100);
y <- rnorm(100);
boxplot(x, y, col=rainbow(2))
Now what I really want is to show the (mean +/- (2 or 3)*sigma) marks for my data set on top of the above boxplot. I do know standard deviation and mean is not robust statistic, but for my data-set that information may be useful. I.e. the intended figure should look like:
Where the dotted lines (of different colors) represent corresponding plots' 95% or 99.7% confidence interval or (mean +/- (2 or 3)*sigma).
N.B. Unfortunately I can't add the figures here since I don't have enough reputation, will appreciate if someone can upload here from the above links.
Something that would be very simple and easy to do, would be to use the notch=TRUE argument in the boxplot() function (see ?boxplot). This isn't quite the same as a 95% confidence interval for the mean, but is instead analogous to a 95% CI for the median (which would address your concern about robustness). It is explained here:
The notches (if requested) extend to +/-1.58 IQR/sqrt(n). This seems
to be based on the same calculations as the formula with 1.57 in
Chambers et al. (1983, p. 62), given in McGill et al. (1978, p. 16).
They are based on asymptotic normality of the median and roughly equal
sample sizes for the two medians being compared, and are said to be
rather insensitive to the underlying distributions of the samples. The
idea appears to be to give roughly a 95% confidence interval for the
difference in two medians.
Related
I would like to (i) compute and (ii) plot the central credible interval and the highest posterior density intervals for a distribution in the Distributions.jl library.
Ideally, one can write their own function to compute CI and HPD and then use Plots.jl to plot them. However, I'm finding the implementation quite tricky (disclaimer: I'm new to Julia).
Any suggestions about libraries/gists/repo to check out that make the computing and plotting them easier?
Context
using Plots, StatsPlots, LaTeXStrings
using Distributions
dist = Beta(10, 10)
plot(dist) # thanks to StatsPlots it nicely plots the distribution
# missing piece 1: compute CI and HPD
# missing piece 2: plot CI and HPD
Expected end result summarized in the image below or at p. 33 of BDA3.
Resources found so far:
gist: uses PyPlot, though
hdrcde R package
Thanks for updating the question; it brings a new perspective.
The gist is kind of correct; only it uses an earlier version of Julia.
Hence linspace should be replaced by LinRange. Instead of using PyPlot use using Plots.
I would change the plotting part to the following:
plot(cred_x, pdf(B, cred_x), fill=(0, 0.9, :orange))
plot!(x,pdf(B,x), title="pdf with 90% region highlighted")
At first glance, the computation of the CI seems correct. (Like the answer from Closed Limelike Curves or the answer from the question [there][1]). For the HDP, I concur with Closed Limelike Curves. Only I would add that you could build your HDP function upon the gist code. I would also have a version for posterior with a known distribution (like in your reference document page 33, figure 2.2) as you don't need to sample. And another with sampling like Closed Limelike Curves indicated.
OP edited the question, so I'm giving a new answer.
For central credible intervals, the answer is pretty easy: Take the quantiles at each point:
lowerBound = quantile(Normal(0, 1), .025)
upperBound = quantile(Normal(0, 1), .975)
This will give you an interval where the probability of x lying below the lower bound .025, and similarly for the upper bound, adding up to .05.
HPDs are harder to calculate. In addition, they tend to be less common because they have some weird properties that aren't shared by central credible intervals. The easiest way to do it is probably using a Monte Carlo algorithm. Use randomSample = rand(Normal(0, 1), 2^12) to draw 2^12 samples from the Normal distribution. (Or however many samples you want, more gives more accurate results that are less affected by random chance.) Then, for each random point, evaluate the probability density at that random point using pdf.(randomSample). Then, pick the 95% of points with the highest probability density; include all of these points in the highest density interval, and any points between them (I'm assuming you're dealing with a single-moded distribution like the normal).
There are better ways to do this for the normal distribution, but they're harder to generalize.
You're looking for ArviZ.jl, together with Turing.jl's MCMCChains. MCMCChains will give you very basic plotting capabilities, e.g. a plot of the PDF estimated from each chain. ArviZ.jl (a wrapper around the Python ArviZ package) adds a lot more plots.
I'm using the 'spatstat' package in R and obtained a set of Ripley's K functions (or L functions). I want to find a good way to average out this set of graphs on a single average line, as well as graphing out the standard deviation or confidence interval around this average line.
So far I've tried:
env.A <- envelope(A, fun=Lest, correction=c("Ripley"), nsim=99, rank=1, global=TRUE)
Aa <- env.A
avg <- eval.fv((Aa+Bb+Cc+Dd+Ee+Ff+Gg+Hh+Ii+Jj+Kk+Ll+Mm+Nn+Oo+Pp+Qq+Rr+Ss+Tt+Uu+Vv+Ww+Xx)/24)
plot(avg, xlim=c(0,200), . - r ~ r, ylab='', legend='')
With this, I got the average line from the data set.
However, I'm now stuck on finding the confidence interval around this average line.
Does anyone know a good way to do this?
The help file for envelope explains how to do this.
E <- envelope(A, Lest, correction="Ripley", nsim=100, VARIANCE=TRUE)
plot(E, . - r ~ r)
See help(envelope) for more explanation.
In this example, the average or middle curve is computed using a theoretical formula, because the simulations are generated from Complete Spatial Randomness, and the theoretical value of the L function is known. If you want the middle curve to be determined by the sample averages instead, set use.theo = FALSE in the call to envelope.
Can I also point out that the bands you get from envelope are not confidence intervals. A confidence interval would be centred around the estimated L function for the data point pattern A. The bands you get from the envelope command are centred around the mean value of the simulated curves. They are significance bands and their interpretation is related to a statistical significance test. This is also explained in the help file.
Is it possible to/how can I generate a beta-binomial distribution from an existing vector?
My ultimate goal is to generate a beta-binomial distribution from the below data and then obtain the 95% confidence interval for this distribution.
My data are body condition scores recorded by a veterinarian. The values of body condition range from 0-5 in increments of 0.5. It has been suggested to me here that my data follow a beta-binomial distribution, discrete values with a restricted range.
set1 <- as.data.frame(c(3,3,2.5,2.5,4.5,3,2,4,3,3.5,3.5,2.5,3,3,3.5,3,3,4,3.5,3.5,4,3.5,3.5,4,3.5))
colnames(set1) <- "numbers"
I see that there are multiple functions which appear to be able to do this, betabinomial() in VGAM and rbetabinom() in emdbook, but my stats and coding knowledge is not yet sufficient to be able to understand and implement the instructions provided on the function help pages, at least not in a way that has been helpful for my intended purpose yet.
We can look at the distribution of your variables, y-axis is the probability:
x1 = set1$numbers*2
h = hist(x1,breaks=seq(0,10))
bp = barplot(h$counts/length(x1),names.arg=(h$mids+0.5)/2,ylim=c(0,0.35))
You can try to fit it, but you have too little data points to estimate the 3 parameters need for a beta binomial. Hence I fix the probability so that the mean is the mean of your scores, and looking at the distribution above it seems ok:
library(bbmle)
library(emdbook)
library(MASS)
mtmp <- function(prob,size,theta) {
-sum(dbetabinom(x1,prob,size,theta,log=TRUE))
}
m0 <- mle2(mtmp,start=list(theta=100),
data=list(size=10,prob=mean(x1)/10),control=list(maxit=1000))
THETA=coef(m0)[1]
We can also use a normal distribution:
normal_fit = fitdistr(x1,"normal")
MEAN=normal_fit$estimate[1]
SD=normal_fit$estimate[2]
Plot both of them:
lines(bp[,1],dbetabinom(1:10,size=10,prob=mean(x1)/10,theta=THETA),
col="blue",lwd=2)
lines(bp[,1],dnorm(1:10,MEAN,SD),col="orange",lwd=2)
legend("topleft",c("normal","betabinomial"),fill=c("orange","blue"))
I think you are actually ok with using a normal estimation and in this case it will be:
normal_fit$estimate
mean sd
6.560000 1.134196
First off, I'm not entirely sure if this is the correct place to be posting this, as perhaps it should go in a more statistics-focussed forum. However, as I'm planning to implement this with R, I figured it would be best to post it here. Please apologise if I'm wrong.
So, what I'm trying to do is the following. I want to simulate data for a total of 250.000 observations, assigning a continuous (non-integer) value in line with a kernel density estimate derived from empirical data (discrete), with original values ranging from -5 to +5. Here's a plot of the distribution I want to use.
It's quite essential to me that I don't simulate the new data based on the discrete probabilities, but rather the continuous ones as it's really important that a value can be say 2.89 rather than 3 or 2. So new values would be assigned based on the probabilities depicted in the plot. The most frequent value in the simulated data would be somewhere around +2, whereas values around -4 and +5 would be rather rare.
I have done quite a bit of reading on simulating data in R and about how kernel density estimates work, but I'm really not moving forward at all. So my question basically entails two steps - how do I even simulate the data (1) and furthermore, how do I simulate the data using this particular probability distribution (2)?
Thanks in advance, I hope you guys can help me out with this.
With your underlying discrete data, create a kernel density estimate on as fine a grid as you wish (i.e., as "close to continuous" as needed for your application (within the limits of machine precision and computing time, of course)). Then sample from that kernel density, using the density values to ensure that more probable values of your distribution are more likely to be sampled. For example:
Fake data, just to have something to work with in this example:
set.seed(4396)
dat = round(rnorm(1000,100,10))
Create kernel density estimate. Increase n if you want the density estimated on a finer grid of points:
dens = density(dat, n=2^14)
In this case, the density is estimated on a grid of 2^14 points, with distance mean(diff(dens$x))=0.0045 between each point.
Now, sample from the kernel density estimate: We sample the x-values of the density estimate, and set prob equal to the y-values (densities) of the density estimate, so that more probable x-values will be more likely to be sampled:
kern.samp = sample(dens$x, 250000, replace=TRUE, prob=dens$y)
Compare dens (the density estimate of our original data) (black line), with the density of kern.samp (red):
plot(dens, lwd=2)
lines(density(kern.samp), col="red",lwd=2)
With the method above, you can create a finer and finer grid for the density estimate, but you'll still be limited to density values at grid points used for the density estimate (i.e., the values of dens$x). However, if you really need to be able to get the density for any data value, you can create an approximation function. In this case, you would still create the density estimate--at whatever bandwidth and grid size necessary to capture the structure of the data--and then create a function that interpolates the density between the grid points. For example:
dens = density(dat, n=2^14)
dens.func = approxfun(dens)
x = c(72.4588, 86.94, 101.1058301)
dens.func(x)
[1] 0.001689885 0.017292405 0.040875436
You can use this to obtain the density distribution at any x value (rather than just at the grid points used by the density function), and then use the output of dens.func as the prob argument to sample.
For the question "Ellipse around the data in MATLAB", in the answer given by Amro, he says the following:
"If you want the ellipse to represent
a specific level of standard
deviation, the correct way of doing is
by scaling the covariance matrix"
and the code to scale it was given as
STD = 2; %# 2 standard deviations
conf = 2*normcdf(STD)-1; %# covers around 95% of population
scale = chi2inv(conf,2); %# inverse chi-squared with dof=#dimensions
Cov = cov(X0) * scale;
[V D] = eig(Cov);
I don't understand the first 3 lines of the above code snippet. How is the scale calculated by chi2inv(conf,2), and what is the rationale behind multiplying it with the covariace matrix?
Additional Question:
I also found that if I scale it with 1.5 STD, i.e. 86% tiles, the ellipse can cover all of the points, my points set are clumping together, at almost all the cases. On the other hand, if I scale it with 3 STD, i.e. 99%tiles, the ellipse is far too big. Then how can I choose a STD to just tightly cover the clumping points?
Here is an example:
The inner ellipse corresponds to 1.5 STD and outer to 2.5 STD. why 1.5 STD is tightly cover the clumping white points? Is there any approach or reason to define it?
The objective of displaying an ellipse around the data points is to show the confidence interval, or in other words, "how much of the data is within a certain standard deviation way from the mean"
In the above code, he has chosen to display an ellipse that covers 95% of the data points. For a normal distribution, ~67% of the data is 1 s.d. away from the mean, ~95% within 2 s.d. and ~99% within 3 s.d. (the numbers are off the top of my head, but you can easily verify this by calculating the area under the curve). Hence, the value STD=2; You'll find that conf is approx 0.95.
The distance of the data points from the centroid of the data goes something like (xi^2+yi^2)^0.5, ignoring coefficients. Sums of squares of random variables follow a chi-square distribution and hence to get the corresponding 95 percentile, he uses the inverse chi-square function, with d.o.f. 2, as there are two variables.
Lastly, the rationale behind multiplying the scaling constant follows from the fact that for a square matrix A with eigenvalues a1,...,an, the eigenvalues of a matrix kA, where k is a scalar is simply ka1,...,kan. The eigenvalues give the corresponding lengths of the major/minor axis of the ellipse, and so scaling the ellipse or the eigenvalues to the 95%tile is equivalent to multiplying the covariance matrix with the scaling factor.
EDIT
Cheng, although you might already know this, I suggest that you also read this answer to a question on randomness. Consider a Gaussian random variable with zero mean, unit variance. The PDF of a collection of such random variables looks like this
Now, if I were to take two such collections of random variables, square them separately and add them to form a single collection of a new random variable, its distribution looks like this
This is the chi-square distribution with 2 degrees of freedom (since we added two collections).
The equation of the ellipse in the above code can be written as x^2/a^2 +y^2/b^2=k, where x,y are the two random variables, a and b are the major/minor axes, and k is some scaling constant that we need to figure out. As you can see, the above can be interpreted as squaring and adding two collections of Gaussian random variables, and we just saw above what its distribution looks like. So, we can say that k is a random variable that is chi-square distributed with 2 degrees of freedom.
Now all that needs to be done is to find a value for k such that 95%ile of the data is within it. Just like the 1s.d, 2s.d, 3s.d. percentiles that we're familiar with Gaussians, the 95%tile for chi-square with 2 degrees of freedom is around 6.18. This is what Amro obtains from the chi2inv function. He could have just as well written scale=chi2inv(0.95,2) and it would have been the same. It's just that talking in terms of n s.d. away from the mean is intuitive.
Just to illustrate, here's a PDF of the chi-square distribution above, with 95% of the area < some x shaded in red. This x is ~6.18.
Hope this helped.