I am trying to assess the infuence of sex (nominal), altitude (nominal) and latitude (nominal) on corrected wing size (continuous; residual of wing size by body mass) of an animal species. I considered altitude as a nominal factor given the fact that this particular species is mainly distributed at the extremes (low and high) of steep elevational gradients in my study area. I also considered latitude as a nominal fixed factor given the fact that I have sampled individuals only at three main latitudinal levels (north, center and south).
I have been suggested to use Linear Mixed Model for this analysis. Specifically, considering sex, altitude, latitude, sex:latitude, sex:altitude, and altitude:latitude as fixed factors, and collection site (nominal) as the random effect. The latter given the clustered distribution of the collection sites.
However, I noticed that despite the corrected wing size follow a normal distribution, it violates the assumption of homoscedasticity among some altitudinal/latitudinal groups. I tried to use a non-parametric equivalent of factorial ANOVA (ARTool) but I cannot make it run because it does not allow cases of missing data and it requires to asses all possible fixed factor and their interactions. I will appreciate any advice on what type of model I can use given the design of my data and what software/package can I use to perform the analysis.
Thanks in advance for your kind attention.
Regards,
Related
I am learning statistics, and have some basic yet core questions on SD:
s = sample size
n = total number of observations
xi = ith observation
μ = arithmetic mean of all observations
σ = the usual definition of SD, i.e. ((1/(n-1))*sum([(xi-μ)**2 for xi in s])**(1/2) in Python lingo
f = frequency of an observation value
I do understand that (1/n)*sum([xi-μ for xi in s]) would be useless (= 0), but would not (1/n)*sum([abs(xi-μ) for xi in s]) have been a measure of variation?
Why stop at power of 1 or 2? Would ((1/(n-1))*sum([abs((xi-μ)**3) for xi in s])**(1/3) or ((1/(n-1))*sum([(xi-μ)**4 for xi in s])**(1/4) and so on have made any sense?
My notion of squaring is that it 'amplifies' the measure of variation from the arithmetic mean while the simple absolute difference is somewhat a linear scale notionally. Would it not amplify it even more if I cubed it (and made absolute value of course) or quad it?
I do agree computationally cubes and quads would have been more expensive. But with the same argument, the absolute values would have been less expensive... So why squares?
Why is the Normal Distribution like it is, i.e. f = (1/(σ*math.sqrt(2*pi)))*e**((-1/2)*((xi-μ)/σ))?
What impact would it have on the normal distribution formula above if I calculated SD as described in (1) and (2) above?
Is it only a matter of our 'getting used to the squares', it could well have been linear, cubed or quad, and we would have trained our minds likewise?
(I may not have been 100% accurate in my number of opening and closing brackets above, but you will get the idea.)
So, if you are looking for an index of dispersion, you actually don't have to use the standard deviation. You can indeed report mean absolute deviation, the summary statistic you suggested. You merely need to be aware of how each summary statistic behaves, for example the SD assigns more weight to outlying variables. You should also consider how each one can be interpreted. For example, with a normal distribution, we know how much of the distribution lies between ±2SD from the mean. For some discussion of mean absolute deviation (and other measures of average absolute deviation, such as the median average deviation) and their uses see here.
Beyond its use as a measure of spread though, SD is related to variance and this is related to some of the other reasons it's popular, because the variance has some nice mathematical properties. A mathematician or statistician would be able to provide a more informed answer here, but squared difference is a smooth function and is differentiable everywhere, allowing one to analytically identify a minimum, which helps when fitting functions to data using least squares estimation. For more detail and for a comparison with least absolute deviations see here. Another major area where variance shines is that it can be easily decomposed and summed, which is useful for example in ANOVA and regression models generally. See here for a discussion.
As to your questions about raising to higher powers, they actually do have uses in statistics! In general, the mean (which is related to average absolute mean), the variance (related to standard deviation), skewness (related to the third power) and kurtosis (related to the fourth power) are all related to the moments of a distribution. Taking differences raised to those powers and standardizing them provides useful information about the shape of a distribution. The video I linked provides some easy intuition.
For some other answers and a larger discussion of why SD is so popular, See here.
Regarding the relationship of sigma and the normal distribution, sigma is simply a parameter that stretches the standard normal distribution, just like the mean changes its location. This is simply a result of the way the standard normal distribution (a normal distribution with mean=0 and SD=variance=1) is mathematically defined, and note that all normal distributions can be derived from the standard normal distribution. This answer illustrates this. Now, you can parameterize a normal distribution in other ways as well, but I believe you do need to provide sigma, whether using the SD or precisions. I don't think you can even parametrize a normal distribution using just the mean and the mean absolute difference. Now, a deeper question is why normal distributions are so incredibly useful in representing widely different phenomena and crop up everywhere. I think this is related to the Central Limit Theorem, but I do not understand the proofs of the theorem well enough to comment further.
Running a survival analysis, assume the p-value regarding a variable is statistically significant - let's say with a positive association with the outcome. However, according to the Schoenfeld residuals, the proportional hazard (PH) assumption has is violated.
Which scenario among below could possibly happen after correcting for PH violations?
The p-value may not be significant anymore.
p-value still significant, but the size of HR may change.
p-value still significant, but the direction of association may be altered (i. e. a positive association may end up being negative).
The PH assumption violation usually means that there is an interaction effect that needs to be included in the model. In the simple linear regression, including a new variable may alter the direction of the existing variables' coefficients due to the collinearity. Can we use the same rationale in the case above?
Therneau and Gramsch have written a very useful text, "Modeling Survival Data" that has an entire chapter on testing proportionality. At the end of the chapter is a section on causes and modeling alternatives, which I think can be used for answering this question. Since you mention interactions it makes your question about a particular p-value rather ambiguous and vague.
1) Certainly if you have chosen a particular measurement as the subject of your interest and it turns out the all of the effects are due to its interaction with another variable that you happened to also measure, then you may be in a position where the variable-of-interest's p-value will decrease, possibly to zero.
2) It's almost certain that modification of a model with a different structure (say will the addition of time-varying covariates or a different treatment of time) will result in a different estimated HR for a particular covariate and I think it would be impossible to predict the direction of the change.
3) As to whether to sign of the coefficient could change, I'm quite sure that would be possible as well. The scenario I'm thinking of would have a mixture of two groups say men and women and one of the groups had a sub-group whose early mortality was greatly increased, e.g. breast cancer, while the surviving members of that group would have a more favorable survival expectation. The base model might show a positive coefficient (high risk) while a model that was capable of identifying the subgroup at risk would then allow the gender-related coefficient to become negative (lower risk).
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'm trying to find confidence intervals for the means of various variables in a database using SPSS, and I've run into a spot of trouble.
The data is weighted, because each of the people who was surveyed represents a different portion of the overall population. For example, one young man in our sample might represent 28000 young men in the general population. The problem is that SPSS seems to think that the young man's database entries each represent 28000 measurements when they actually just represent one, and this makes SPSS think we have much more data than we actually do. As a result SPSS is giving very very low standard error estimates and very very narrow confidence intervals.
I've tried fixing this by dividing every weight value by the mean weight. This gives plausible figures and an average weight of 1, but I'm not sure the resulting numbers are actually correct.
Is my approach sound? If not, what should I try?
I've been using the Explore command to find mean and standard error (among other things), in case it matters.
You do need to scale weights to the actual sample size, but only the procedures in the Complex Samples option are designed to account for sampling weights properly. The regular weight variable in Statistics is treated as a frequency weight.
A friend is using Factor Graphs to do text mining (identifying references to people in text), and it got me interested in this tool, but I'm having a hard time finding an intuitive explanation of what Factor Graphs are and how to use them.
Can anyone provide an explanation of Factor Graphs that isn't math heavy, and which focusses on practical applications rather than abstract theory?
They are used extensively for breaking down a problem into pieces. One very interesting application of factor graphs (and message passing on them) is the XBox Live TrueSkill algorithm. I wrote extensively about it on my blog where I tried to go for an introductory explanation rather than an overly academic one.
A factor graph is the graphical representation of the dependencies between variables and factors (parts of a formula) that are present in a particular kind of formula.
Suppose you have a function f(x_1,x_2,...,x_n) and you want to compute the marginalization of this function for some argument x_i, thus summing over all assignments to the remaining formula. Further f can be broken into factors, e.g.
f(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)=f_1(x_1,x_2)f_2(x_5,x_8,x_9)...f_k(x_1,x_10,x_11)
Then in order to compute the marginalization of f for some of the variables you can use a special algorithm called sum product (or message passing), that breaks the problem into smaller computations. For this algortithm, it is very important which variables appear as arguments to which factor. This information is captured by the factor graph.
A factor graph is a bipartite graph with both factor nodes and variable nodes. And there is an edge between a factor and a variable node if the variable appears as an argument of the factor. In our example there would be an edge between the factor f_2 and the variable x_5 but not between f_2 and x_1.
There is a great article: Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm.
Factor graph is math model, and can be explained only with math equations. In nutshell it is way to explain complex relations between interest variables in your model. Example: A is temperature, B is pressure, components C,D,E are depends on B,A in some way, and component K is depends on B,A. And you want to predict value K based on A and B. So you know only visible states. Basic ML libraries don't allow to model such structure. Neural network do it better. And Factor Graph is exactly solve that problem.
Factor graph is an example of deep learning. When it is impossible to present model with features and output, Factor models allow to build hidden states, layers and complex structure of variables to fit real world behavior. Examples are Machine translation alignment, fingerprint recognition, co-reference etc.