-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
/
assignment-03.Rmd
555 lines (447 loc) · 16.6 KB
/
assignment-03.Rmd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
# Assignment 3
2021-09-07
**[Assignment 3](`r paste0(CM_URL, "assignment-03.pdf")`)**
## Setup
```{r setup, warning=FALSE, message=FALSE}
knitr::opts_chunk$set(echo = TRUE, comment = "#>", dpi = 300)
for (f in list.files(here::here("src"), pattern = "R$", full.names = TRUE)) {
source(f)
}
library(glue)
library(tidyverse)
theme_set(theme_bw() + theme(plot.title = element_text(hjust = 0.5)))
set.seed(748)
```
## Exercise 1. Inference for normal mean and deviation
**A factory produces car windshields and we have sample of data from testing their hardness.**
**Assume the observations follow a normal distribution with unknown standard deviation.**
**Also use an uninformative prior $p(\mu, \sigma) \propto \sigma^{-1}$.**
```{r}
windshieldy <- read_data("windshieldy1.txt")
windshieldy <- as.numeric(windshieldy)
windshieldy_test <- c(13.357, 14.928, 14.896, 14.820)
```
**a) What can you say about the unknown $\mu$?**
**Summarize your results using Bayesian point estimate (i.e. $E(\mu|y)$), a posterior interval (95%), and plot the density.**
The point estimate and 95% CI for $\mu$ can be calculated using the $t$-distribution and scaling the result according to the following equation for BDA3 (pg. 66):
$$
\frac{\mu - \bar{y}}{s / \sqrt{n}} | y \sim t_{n-1}
$$
where
$$
s = \frac{1}{n-1} \Sigma(y - \bar{y})^2
$$
and $n$ is the total number of data points.
```{r}
calc_s_statistic <- function(a) {
s_sqr <- (1 / (length(a) - 1)) * sum((a - mean(a))^2)
return(sqrt(s_sqr))
}
mu_point_est <- function(data, q = 0.5) {
y <- data
n <- length(y)
y_bar <- mean(y)
s <- calc_s_statistic(y)
t_prob <- qt(q, df = n - 1)
return(t_prob * s / sqrt(n) + y_bar)
}
stopifnot(close_to(mu_point_est(data = windshieldy_test), 14.5))
mu_point_est(data = windshieldy)
```
```{r}
mu_interval <- function(data, prob = 0.95) {
lower_q <- (1 - prob) / 2.0
upper_q <- 1 - lower_q
return(c(mu_point_est(data, lower_q), mu_point_est(data, upper_q)))
}
stopifnot(all(close_to(
mu_interval(data = windshieldy_test, prob = 0.95),
c(13.3, 15.7),
epsilon = 0.1
)))
mu_interval(data = windshieldy)
```
The probability density function of $\mu$ can be estimated using the same equations.
The PDF is plotted below.
```{r}
mu_density <- function(mu, data) {
y <- data
n <- length(y)
y_bar <- mean(y)
s <- calc_s_statistic(y)
mu_trans <- (mu - y_bar) / (s / sqrt(n))
d <- dt(mu_trans, df = n - 1)
return(d)
}
mus <- seq(11.5, 17.5, 0.01)
mu_dens <- purrr::map_dbl(mus, ~ mu_density(.x, windshieldy))
plot_dist(
mus,
mu_dens,
xlab = "mu",
ylab = "probability",
main = "posterior distribution of mu"
)
```
The PDF for $\sigma$ can be calculated analytically from equation 3.5 in BDA (pg. 65).
$$
\sigma^2 | y \sim \text{Inv-}\chi^2(n-1, s^2)
$$
where $n$ and $s$ have the same description as above.
The $\text{Inv-}\chi^2(\nu, s^2)$ distribution is the scaled inverse chi-squared distribution parameterized by the degrees of freedom $\nu$ and scale $s$ (BDA3, Appendix A, pg. 578).
I used the function `dinvchisq()` from the package ['LaplacesDemon'](https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=LaplacesDemon) to calculate the probabilities of values of $\sigma^2$.
The PDF for $sigma^2$ is plotted below.
```{r}
sigma_probability <- function(x, data) {
nu <- length(data) - 1
s <- calc_s_statistic(data)
d <- LaplacesDemon::dinvchisq(x = x, df = nu, scale = s)
return(d)
}
sigmas <- seq(0, 10.0, 0.01)
sigmas <- sigmas[2:length(sigmas)]
sigma_dens <- purrr::map_dbl(sigmas, ~ sigma_probability(.x, windshieldy))
plot_dist(
sigmas,
sigma_dens,
xlab = "sigma^2",
ylab = "probability",
main = "posterior distribution of sigma^2"
)
```
**b) What can you say about the hardness of the next windshield coming from the production line before actually measuring the hardness?**
**Summarize your results using Bayesian point estimate, a predictive interval (95%), and plot the density.**
Random values of $\mu$ can be sampled from the $t$-distribution (and transformed as explained above) and samples for $\sigma^2$ can be sampled from the $\text{Inv-}\chi^2$ distribution.
Another option for sampling $\sigma^2$ is to first sample values $X$ from the $\chi_\nu^2$ distribution and transform them by $\nu s^2 / X$ (BDA3, Appendix A, pg. 583).
The posterior predictive sampling procedure was to sample 1,000 random values for $\mu$ and $\sigma$ then sample a random value from a normal distribution described with each pair of the random values.
```{r}
random_mu <- function(n, data) {
y <- data
nu <- length(y)
y_bar <- mean(y)
s <- calc_s_statistic(y)
r <- rt(n, df = nu)
return(r * s / sqrt(nu) + y_bar)
}
scaled_rinvchiq <- function(n, data) {
nu <- length(data) - 1
s <- calc_s_statistic(data)
theta <- LaplacesDemon::rinvchisq(n = n, df = nu, scale = s)
return(theta)
}
n <- 1e4
r_sigmas_sqrd <- scaled_rinvchiq(n, data = windshieldy)
r_mus <- random_mu(n, data = windshieldy)
y_tildes <- rnorm(n, mean = r_mus, sd = sqrt(r_sigmas_sqrd))
```
The plot below shows 100 of the randomly created normal distributions form the sampled values of $\mu$ and $\sigma$.
```{r}
get_densities_over_x <- function(mu, sigma, a = 10, b = 20, stepsize = 0.1) {
x <- seq(a, b, stepsize)
y <- dnorm(x, mean = mu, sd = sigma)
return(tibble(x, y))
}
plot_n <- 100
tibble(
sigma = head(sqrt(r_sigmas_sqrd), n = plot_n),
mu = head(r_mus, n = plot_n)
) %>%
mutate(
grp = glue("mu = {round(mu, 2)}, sigma = {round(sigma, 2)}"),
dist_data = purrr::map2(mu, sigma, get_densities_over_x)
) %>%
unnest(dist_data) %>%
ggplot(aes(x = x, y = y)) +
geom_line(aes(group = grp), alpha = 0.25) +
scale_x_continuous(expand = c(0, 0)) +
scale_y_continuous(expand = expansion(mult = c(0, 0.02))) +
labs(
x = "windshield hardness",
y = "probability",
title = "Posterior distributions for the hardness of windshield"
)
```
The density of the posterior samples for $\mu$ and $\sigma$ is shown in the plot below.
```{r}
post_pred_df <- tibble(
mu = r_mus, sigma = sqrt(r_sigmas_sqrd), y_tilde = y_tildes
)
post_pred_df %>%
ggplot(aes(x = mu, y = sigma)) +
geom_point(alpha = 0.5, size = 0.2) +
geom_density2d() +
scale_x_continuous(expand = expansion(mult = c(0.02, 0.02))) +
scale_y_continuous(expand = expansion(mult = c(0.02, 0.02))) +
labs(title = "Posterior samples for distribution parameters")
```
Finally, the following is the posterior predictive distribution.
```{r}
post_pred_df %>%
add_column(grp = "y_tilde") %>%
bind_rows(tibble(y_tilde = windshieldy, grp = "y")) %>%
ggplot(aes(x = y_tilde)) +
geom_rug(aes(x = y), data = tibble(y = windshieldy)) +
geom_density(aes(color = grp)) +
scale_x_continuous(expand = c(0, 0)) +
scale_y_continuous(expand = expansion(mult = c(0, 0.02))) +
scale_color_brewer(type = "qual", palette = "Set1") +
labs(
x = "windshield hardness",
y = "density",
color = NULL,
title = "Posterior predicitive distribution"
)
```
Using the functions created above, I can address the specific tests provided with the question.
It would be better to provide an analytic solution by integrating over the probability densities of $\sigma$ and $\mu$, but these sampling-based solutions are pretty close.
```{r}
post_pred_sample <- function(data, n) {
mu <- random_mu(n, data = data)
sigma <- sqrt(scaled_rinvchiq(n, data = data))
purrr::map2_dbl(mu, sigma, ~ rnorm(1, mean = .x, sd = .y))
}
mu_pred_point_est <- function(data, n = 1e6, iters = 5) {
lapply(
seq(1, iters),
function(x) {
mean(post_pred_sample(data = data, n = n))
}
) %>%
unlist() %>%
mean()
}
mu_pred_interval <- function(data, prob, n = 1e7) {
lower_q <- (1.0 - prob) / 2.0
upper_q <- 1.0 - lower_q
post_pred_samples <- post_pred_sample(data = data, n = n)
quantile(post_pred_samples, c(lower_q, upper_q))
}
stopifnot(close_to(
mu_pred_point_est(data = windshieldy_test), 14.5,
epsilon = 0.1
))
stopifnot(all(close_to(
mu_pred_interval(data = windshieldy_test, prob = 0.95),
c(11.8, 17.2),
epsilon = 0.5
)))
```
```{r}
mu_pred_point_est(data = windshieldy)
```
```{r}
mu_pred_interval(data = windshieldy, prob = 0.95)
```
## Exercise 2. Inference for the difference between proportions
**An experiment was performed to estimate the effect of beta-blockers on mortality of cardiac patients.**
**A group of patients was randomly assigned to treatment and control groups: out of 674 patients receiving the control, 39 died, and out of 680 receiving the treatment, 22 died.**
**Assume that the outcomes are independent and binomially distributed, with probabilities of death of $p_0$ and $p_1$ under the control and treatment, respectively.**
**Set up a non-informative or weakly informative prior distribution on $(p_0,p_1)$.**
**a) Summarize the posterior distribution for the odds ratio, $\frac{p_1 / (1-p_1)}{p_0 / (1-p_0)}$.**
**Compute the point estimate, a posterior interval (95%), and plot the histogram.**
priors: $p_0, p_1 \sim \text{Beta}(2, 5)$
```{r}
x <- seq(0, 1, 0.01)
p <- dbeta(x, 2, 5)
plot_dist(
x = x,
y = p,
xlab = "proportion",
ylab = "probability",
main = "Prior distribution for p0, p1 ~ Beta(2, 5)"
)
```
likelihoods:
- $y_0|p_0, n_0 \sim \text{Binomial}(p_0, n_0)$
- $y_1|p_1, n_1 \sim \text{Binomial}(p_1, n_1)$
posteriors:
- $p_0|y_0, n_0 \sim \text{Beta}(y_0 + 2, n_0 - y_0 + 5)$
- $p_1|y_1, n_1 \sim \text{Beta}(y_1 + 2, n_1 - y_1 + 5)$
```{r}
# Calculate the odds ratio given two values or vectors.
posterior_odds_ratio <- function(p0, p1) {
or <- (p1 / (1 - p1)) / (p0 / (1 - p0))
return(or)
}
```
```{r}
# Calculate a point estimate (mean) for the OR.
posterior_odds_ratio_point_est <- function(p0, p1) {
return(mean(posterior_odds_ratio(p0, p1)))
}
```
```{r}
# Find probability intervals for the posterior OR.
posterior_odds_ratio_interval <- function(p0, p1, prob = 0.95) {
lower_q <- (1.0 - prob) / 2.0
upper_q <- 1.0 - lower_q
or <- posterior_odds_ratio(p0, p1)
return(quantile(or, c(lower_q, upper_q)))
}
```
I can check my calculations and implementation using the test data provided with the exercise.
```{r}
# test data
set.seed(4711)
p0 <- rbeta(100000, 5, 95)
p1 <- rbeta(100000, 10, 90)
stopifnot(close_to(
posterior_odds_ratio_point_est(p0 = p0, p1 = p1), 2.676,
epsilon = 0.01
))
stopifnot(all(close_to(
posterior_odds_ratio_interval(p0 = p0, p1 = p1, prob = 0.9),
c(0.875, 6.059),
epsilon = 0.01
)))
```
Finally, I can address the question using the following values: $n_0= 674$, $y_0 = 39$, $n_1=680$, and $y_1 = 22$.
I used a weakly informative prior $\text{Beta}(2, 5)$
I first drew samples from the posteriors for $p_0$ and $p_1$ then used those to calculate the posterior for the odds ratio.
```{r}
n0 <- 674
y0 <- 39
n1 <- 680
y1 <- 22
prior_a <- 2
prior_b <- 5
sample_posterior_p <- function(prior_a, prior_b, y, n, draws = 1e6) {
a <- prior_a + y
b <- prior_b + n - y
return(rbeta(draws, a, b))
}
p0_post <- sample_posterior_p(prior_a, prior_b, y = y0, n = n0)
p1_post <- sample_posterior_p(prior_a, prior_b, y = y1, n = n1)
post_or <- posterior_odds_ratio(p0_post, p1_post)
```
The posterior distributions of $p_0$ and $p_1$ are shown below.
From this plot, it appears that $p_1$ is likely lower than $p_0$ and we should expect an $OR < 1$.
```{r}
plot_two_distributions(p0_post, "p0", p1_post, "p1") +
labs(
x = "parameter value",
y = "density",
color = "parameter",
fill = "parameter"
)
```
The posterior distribution for the odds ratio is plotted below and it is shifted primarily to values less than 1.
```{r}
plot_single_distribution(post_or) +
labs(x = "odds ratio", y = "density")
```
**b) Discuss the sensitivity of your inference to your choice of prior density with a couple of sentences.**
```{r}
# Non-informative priors
prior_a <- 1
prior_b <- 1
sample_posterior_p <- function(prior_a, prior_b, y, n, draws = 1e6) {
a <- prior_a + y
b <- prior_b + n - y
return(rbeta(draws, a, b))
}
p0_post_noinfo <- sample_posterior_p(prior_a, prior_b, y = y0, n = n0)
p1_post_noinfo <- sample_posterior_p(prior_a, prior_b, y = y1, n = n1)
post_or_noinfo <- posterior_odds_ratio(p0_post_noinfo, p1_post_noinfo)
plot_single_distribution(post_or_noinfo)
```
```{r}
plot_two_distributions(post_or, "weakly info.", post_or_noinfo, "non-info.") +
labs(x = "odds ratio", y = "density", color = "prior", fill = "prior")
```
The difference in influence on the posterior inference between a weakly informative prior $\text{Beta}(2, 5)$ and non-informative, uniform prior $\text{Beta}(1, 1)$ is negligible.
The large number of data points overwhelms the prior's influence.
This can be tested by experimenting with a very strong prior $\text{Beta}(1000, 5)$, as shown below.
```{r}
# Strong priors
prior_a <- 1000
prior_b <- 5
sample_posterior_p <- function(prior_a, prior_b, y, n, draws = 1e6) {
a <- prior_a + y
b <- prior_b + n - y
return(rbeta(draws, a, b))
}
p0_post_strong <- sample_posterior_p(prior_a, prior_b, y = y0, n = n0)
p1_post_strong <- sample_posterior_p(prior_a, prior_b, y = y1, n = n1)
post_or_strong <- posterior_odds_ratio(p0_post_strong, p1_post_strong)
plot_two_distributions(post_or, "weakly info.", post_or_strong, "strong") +
labs(x = "odds ratio", y = "density", color = "prior", fill = "prior")
```
## Exercise 3. Inference for the difference between normal means
**Consider a case where the same factory has two production lines for manufacturing car windshields.**
**Independent samples from the two production lines were tested for hardness.**
**We assume that the samples have unknown standard deviations $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$.**
**Use uninformative or weakly informative priors.**
```{r}
windshieldy1 <- read_data("windshieldy1.txt") %>% as.numeric()
windshieldy2 <- read_data("windshieldy2.txt") %>% as.numeric()
```
**a) What can you say about $\mu_d = \mu_1 - \mu_2$?**
I calculated $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ as in Exercise 1.
The posterior distributions for these parameters is plotted below along with the actual observed values along the x-axis.
```{r}
mus <- seq(11.5, 17.5, 0.01)
mu1_dens <- purrr::map_dbl(mus, ~ mu_density(.x, windshieldy1))
mu2_dens <- purrr::map_dbl(mus, ~ mu_density(.x, windshieldy2))
```
```{r}
data_tibble <- tibble(
prod_line = c(rep("1", length(windshieldy1)), rep("2", length(windshieldy2))),
y = c(windshieldy1, windshieldy2)
)
tibble(
mu = c(mus, mus),
prob = c(mu1_dens, mu2_dens),
prod_line = c(rep("1", length(mu1_dens)), rep("2", length(mu2_dens)))
) %>%
ggplot() +
geom_line(aes(x = mu, y = prob, color = prod_line)) +
geom_rug(aes(x = y, color = prod_line), data = data_tibble, size = 1.2) +
scale_x_continuous(expand = c(0, 0)) +
scale_y_continuous(expand = expansion(mult = c(0, 0.02))) +
labs(x = "windshield hardness", y = "probability", color = "production line")
```
As before, I can sample from the posteriors of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ and use these simulated values for further calculations, in this case $\mu_d = \mu_1 - \mu_2$.
The distribution for $\mu_d$ is plotted below.
```{r}
n <- 1e6
mu1_draws <- random_mu(n, data = windshieldy1)
mu2_draws <- random_mu(n, data = windshieldy2)
mud_draws <- mu1_draws - mu2_draws
plot_single_distribution(mud_draws) +
theme(axis.title.x = ggtext::element_markdown()) +
labs(x = "µ<sub>d</sub>", y = "probability density")
```
Using the simulated posterior, I can get an estimate for the expected value of $\mu_d$ as the mean of the posterior distribution.
```{r}
glue(
"point estimate for µ_d as mean of posterior = {round(mean(mud_draws), 3)}"
)
```
I can also use the simulated values to get 95% CI of the posterior.
```{r}
mud_95ci <- round(quantile(mud_draws, c(0.025, 0.975)), 3)
glue("95% CI of posterior for µ_d: {mud_95ci[[1]]}, {mud_95ci[[2]]}")
```
Lastly, I can calculate the probability that $\mu_1$ is less than $\mu_2$, i.e. $\mu_d < 0$.
```{r}
prob_mud_neg <- mean(mud_draws < 0)
glue("Pr(µ_1 < µ_2) = {round(prob_mud_neg, 3)}")
```
**b) Given the model used, what is the probability that the means are exactly the same ($\mu_1 = \mu_2$)? Explain your reasoning.**
The probability that $\mu_1 = \mu_2$ is technically 0 because we cannot compute the probability of individual values.
Instead, we can define a region of practical equivalence (ROPE) that represents a range of values where we would say the values are effectively the same.
Ideally, we would ask someone with domain expertise to devise a region based on the real-world meaning of the values, but, in this example with windshield hardness, that is not possible.
Thus, I will define the ROPE to be 1% of the standard deviation of the observed hardness measurements: $0.01 \times \sigma(y_1, y_2)$.
```{r}
rope <- sd(c(windshieldy1, windshieldy2)) * 0.01
rope
```
```{r}
prob_rope <- mean((mud_draws > -rope) & (mud_draws < rope))
glue("probability that µ_d is within the ROPE: {round(prob_rope, 3)}")
```
---
```{r}
sessionInfo()
```