I have 4 variables I want to create a correlation matrix with. The problem is that two of these variables have non-normally distributed data, one of the assumptions of pearson's correlation. If I run the correlation matrix either way (assuming they are normally distributed, when they aren't), pearson's correlation is significant on a 0.08 level across all correlations. Can I use the pearson correlation either way, given that I have a 0.08 level of significance?
I tried using spearman's correlation, which doesn't assume normal distribution, but the significance level of two of the six correlations was over 0.4 (thus not usable for research).
Related
I was attempting some questions based on residplot() in seaborn. There were two residual plots in which I had to tell whether the relationship is linear. Can anyone explain how it is determined by just looking at the plot. Apparently:
1. This plot shows the linear relationship
2. This plot shows a non-linear relationship
Roughly speaking, these residual plots enable you to visually check whether the residuals still contain some nonlinear behaviour with respect to your explanatory variables. Two remarks for further explanation:
The residuals of a correctly specified model (e.g. the baseline linear model) should be similar to random noise. In absence of remaining patterns in the residuals, we have no indications that important features have been omitted.
If the residuals suggest a pattern, then this means that we failed to take some (nonlinear) effects into account. You should reconsider the model specification. If the baseline model was linear, then including some nonlinear terms might "clean" the residuals.
This kind of visual inspection is often subjective. However, you can argue that 1. is just a random cloud of points whereas 2. shows some remaining curvature. There is also a statistical test to do this kind of assessment for you: the Ramsey Regression Equation Specification Error Test (RESET)
I'm looking to implement a hierarchical clustering model for my set of training variables with respect to their correlation matrix (it's a 100x100 matrix, and I want the largest cluster whose elements are the most uncorrelated). I've been able to use the scipy family of functions to do this, however, for visualization and presentations sake, I'd like an alternative correlation distance defined for my data.
The inbuilt distance 'correlation' metric is defined to be 1-r, where r is the pearson score between two variables. I'd like to change it to 1-absvalue(r)-as my most interesting variables are the most uncorrelated ones (so say the variables who find themselves 1-.8 distance apart). Thanks!
Good afternoon,
I know that the traditional independent t-test assumes homoscedasticity (i.e., equal variances across groups) and normality of the residuals.
They are usually checked by using levene's test for homogeneity of variances, and the shapiro-wilk test and qqplots for the normality assumption.
Which statistical assumptions do I have to check with the bayesian independent t test? How may I check them in R with coda and rjags?
For whichever test you want to run, find the formula and plug in using the posterior draws of the parameters you have, such as the variance parameter and any regression coefficients that the formula requires. Iterating the formula over the posterior draws will give you a range of values for the test statistic from which you can take the mean to get an average value and the sd to get a standard deviation (uncertainty estimate).
And boom, you're done.
There might be non-parametric Bayesian t-tests. But commonly, Bayesian t-tests are parametric, and as such they assume equality of relevant population variances. If you could obtain a t-value from a t-test (just a regular t-test for your type of t-test from any software package you're comfortable with), use levene's test (do not think this in any way is a dependable test, remember it uses p-value), then you can do a Bayesian t-test. But remember the point that the Bayesian t-test, requires a conventional modeling of observations (Likelihood), and an appropriate prior for the parameter of interest.
It is highly recommended that t-tests be re-parameterized in terms of effect sizes (especially standardized mean difference effect sizes). That is, you focus on the Bayesian estimation of the effect size arising from the t-test not other parameter in the t-test. If you opt to estimate Effect Size from a t-test, then a very easy to use free, online Bayesian t-test software is THIS ONE HERE (probably one of the most user-friendly package available, note that this software uses a cauchy prior for the effect size arising from any type of t-test).
Finally, since you want to do a Bayesian t-test, I would suggest focusing your attention on picking an appropriate/defensible/meaningful prior rather then levenes' test. No test could really show that the sample data may have come from two populations (in your case) that have had equal variances or not unless data is plentiful. Note that the issue that sample data may have come from populations with equal variances itself is an inferential (Bayesian or non-Bayesian) question.
I'm using PCA from sckit-learn and I'm getting some results which I'm trying to interpret, so I ran into question - should I subtract the mean (or perform standardization) before using PCA, or is this somehow embedded into sklearn implementation?
Moreover, which of the two should I perform, if so, and why is this step needed?
I will try to explain it with an example. Suppose you have a dataset that includes a lot features about housing and your goal is to classify if a purchase is good or bad (a binary classification). The dataset includes some categorical variables (e.g. location of the house, condition, access to public transportation, etc.) and some float or integer numbers (e.g. market price, number of bedrooms etc). The first thing that you may do is to encode the categorical variables. For instance, if you have 100 locations in your dataset, the common way is to encode them from 0 to 99. You may even end up encoding these variables in one-hot encoding fashion (i.e. a column of 1 and 0 for each location) depending on the classifier that you are planning to use. Now if you use the price in million dollars, the price feature would have a much higher variance and thus higher standard deviation. Remember that we use square value of the difference from mean to calculate the variance. A bigger scale would create bigger values and square of a big value grow faster. But it does not mean that the price carry significantly more information compared to for instance location. In this example, however, PCA would give a very high weight to the price feature and perhaps the weights of categorical features would almost drop to 0. If you normalize your features, it provides a fair comparison between the explained variance in the dataset. So, it is good practice to normalize the mean and scale the features before using PCA.
Before PCA, you should,
Mean normalize (ALWAYS)
Scale the features (if required)
Note: Please remember that step 1 and 2 are not the same technically.
This is a really non-technical answer but my method is to try both and then see which one accounts for more variation on PC1 and PC2. However, if the attributes are on different scales (e.g. cm vs. feet vs. inch) then you should definitely scale to unit variance. In every case, you should center the data.
Here's the iris dataset w/ center and w/ center + scaling. In this case, centering lead to higher explained variance so I would go with that one. Got this from sklearn.datasets import load_iris data. Then again, PC1 has most of the weight on center so patterns I find in PC2 I wouldn't think are significant. On the other hand, on center | scaled the weight is split up between PC1 and PC2 so both axis should be considered.
I am running an experiment (it's an image processing experiment) in which I have a set of paper samples and each sample has a set of lines. For each line in the paper sample, its strength is calculated which is denoted by say 's'. For a given paper sample I have to find the variation amongst the strength values 's'. If the variation is above a certain limit, we have to discard that paper.
1) I started with the Standard Deviation of the values, but the problem I am facing is that for each sample, order of magnitude for s (because of various properties of line like its length, sharpness, darkness etc) might differ and also the calculated Standard Deviations values are also differing a lot in magnitude. So I can't really use this method for different samples.
Is there any way where I can find that suitable limit which can be applicable for all samples.
I am thinking that since I don't have any history of how the strength value should behave,( for a given sample depending on the order of magnitude of the strength value more variation could be tolerated in that sample whereas because the magnitude is less in another sample, there should be less variation in that sample) I first need to find a way of baselining the variation in different samples. I don't know what approaches I could try to get started.
Please note that I have to tell variation between lines within a sample whereas the limit should be applicable for any good sample.
Please help me out.
You seem to have a set of samples. Then, for each sample you want to do two things: 1) compute a descriptive metric and 2) perform outlier detection. Both of these are vast subjects that require some knowledge of the phenomenology and statistics of the underlying problem. However, below are some ideas to get you going.
Compute a metric
Median Absolute Deviation. If your sample strength s has values that can jump by an order of magnitude across a sample then it is understandable that the standard deviation was not a good metric. The standard deviation is notoriously sensitive to outliers. So, try a more robust estimate of dispersion in your data. For example, the MAD estimate uses the median in the underlying computations which is more robust to a large spread in the numbers.
Robust measures of scale. Read up on other robust measures like the Interquartile range.
Perform outlier detection
Thresholding. This is similar to what you are already doing. However, you have to choose a suitable threshold for the metric computed above. You might consider using another robust metric for thresholding the metric. You can compute a robust estimate of their mean (e.g., the median) and a robust estimate of their standard deviation (e.g., 1.4826 * MAD). Then identify outliers as metric values above some number of robust standard deviations above the robust mean.
Histogram Another simple method is to histogram your computed metrics from step #1. This is non-parametric so it doesn't require you to model your data. If can histogram your metric values and then use the top 1% (or some other value) as your threshold limit.
Triangle Method A neat and simple heuristic for thresholding is the triangle method to perform binary classification of a skewed distribution.
Anomaly detection Read up on other outlier detection methods.