Download Lecture 22

Environmental Data Analysis with MatLab
Lecture 22:
Hypothesis Testing
Housekeeping
Last home assigned today
Due next Monday
Factor Analysis Worksheet
Available today
SYLLABUS
Lecture 01
Lecture 02
Lecture 03
Lecture 04
Lecture 05
Lecture 06
Lecture 07
Lecture 08
Lecture 09
Lecture 10
Lecture 11
Lecture 12
Lecture 13
Lecture 14
Lecture 15
Lecture 16
Lecture 17
Lecture 18
Lecture 19
Lecture 20
Lecture 21
Lecture 22
Lecture 23
Lecture 24
Using MatLab
Looking At Data
Probability and Measurement Error
Multivariate Distributions
Linear Models
The Principle of Least Squares
Prior Information
Solving Generalized Least Squares Problems
Fourier Series
Complex Fourier Series
Lessons Learned from the Fourier Transform
Power Spectral Density
Filter Theory
Applications of Filters
Factor Analysis
Orthogonal functions
Covariance and Autocorrelation
Cross-correlation
Smoothing, Correlation and Spectra
Coherence; Tapering and Spectral Analysis
Interpolation
Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Testing continued; F-Tests
Confidence Limits of Spectra, Bootstraps
purpose of the lecture
to introduce
Hypothesis Testing
the process of determining the statistical significance
of results
Part 1
motivation
random variation as a spurious source of patterns
5
4
3
2
1
d
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
1
2
3
4
5
x
6
7
8
5
4
3
looks pretty linear
2
1
d
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
1
2
3
4
5
x
6
7
8
actually, its just a bunch of random
numbers!
figure(1);
for i = [1:100]
clf;
axis( [1, 8, -5, 5] );
hold on;
t = [2:7]';
d = random('normal',0,1,6,1);
plot( t, d, 'k-', 'LineWidth', 2 );
plot( t, d, 'ko', 'LineWidth', 2 );
[x,y]=ginput(1);
if( x<1 )
break;
end
the script makes
end
plot after
plot, and lets you stop
when you see one you like
the linearity was due to random variation!
4 more random plots
5
5
d0
-5
d
d0
2
4
x
6
8
-5
5
5
0
d0
-5
2
4
x
6
8
-5
2
4
2
4
x
6
8
x
6
8
scenario
test of a drug
Group A
Group B
given drug at start
of illness
given placebo at
start of illness
Group A
Group B
average length of
illness after
taking drug
average length of
illness after
taking placebo
4.1 days
5.2 days
the logic
people’s immune systems differ
some naturally get better faster than others
perhaps the drug test just happened
- by random chance to have naturally faster people in Group A
?
How much confidence should you have that
the difference between 4.1 and 5.2 is not
due to random variation
?
67%
90%
95%
99%
67%
90%
minimum standard
95%
99%
1 in 20 chance that the
difference was
caused by random
variation
the goal of this lecture is to develop
techniques for quantifying the
probability that
a result is not due to random variation
Part 2
the distribution of the total error
individual error
ei = diobs - dipre
total error
E = Σ i=1N ei2
individual error
ei = diobs - dipre
Normal p.d.f.
total error
E = Σ i=1N ei2
Not Normal.
simplest case
N=1
individual error, e
Normal p.d.f.
zero mean
unit variance
assumes e>0
(since sign goes away when
we square it)
total error, E=e2
p(E)= p[e(E)] |de/dE|
e=E ½ so de/dE = ½E -½
probability
squeezed
toward 0
p(e)
p(E)
general case of N>1
tedious to compute, but not mysterious
total error
E = χN2 = Σ i=1N ei2
general case of N>1
tedious to compute, but not mysterious
total error
E = χN2 = Σ i=1N ei2
E called chi-squared when ei is
Normally-distributed with
zero mean and unit variance
called chi-squared p.d.f
N=1
p(cN2)
2
34
5
c2
N=1
p(cN2)
case we just worked out
2
34
5
c2
Chi-Squared p.d.f.
N called “the degrees of freedom”
mean N
variance 2N
In MatLab
Four Important Distributions
used in hypothesis testing
#1
Normally-distributed
with zero mean and
unit variance
p(Z) with Z=e
Normal distribution for a quantity Z
with zero mean and unit variance
if d is Normally-distributed with mean d
and variance σ2d
then Z = (d-d)/ σd is Normally-distributed with
zero mean and unit variance
#2
p(χN2) with
the chi-squared distribution, which
we just worked out
#3
a new distribution, called the
“t-distribution’
#4
another new distribution, called the
“F-distribution’
t-distribution
0.5
N=5
0.4
0.3
p(tN)
0.2
N=1
0.1
0
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
tN
t-distribution
0.5
N=5
0.4
wider tailed than a
Normal p.d.f.
0.3
p(tN)
0.2
N=1
0.1
0
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
tN
F-distribution
1
p(FN,2) 0.5
0
1
p(FN,5) 0.5
0
2
p(FN,25) 1
0
p(FN,50)
2
1
0
N=2
50
F
0
0.5
N=2
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
50
F
0
0.5
1
N=2 50
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
F
0
0.5
1
N=2 50
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
F
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
F-distribution
1
p(FN,2) 0.5
0
1
p(FN,5) 0.5
0
2
p(FN,25) 1
0
p(FN,50)
2
1
0
N=2
50
skewed at low N and M
F
0
0.5
N=2
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
50
F
0
0.5
1
N=2 50
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
F
0
0.5
1
N=2 50
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
F
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
starts to look Normal
at high N and M
4
4.5
5
Part 4
Hypothesis Testing
Step 1. State a Null Hypothesis
some variation of
the result is due to random variation
Step 1. State a Null Hypothesis
some variation of
the result is due to random variation
e.g.
the means of the Group A and Group B are
different only because of random variation
Step 2. Focus on a quantity that is
unlikely to be large
when the Null Hypothesis is true
Step 2. Focus on a quantity that is
unlikely to be large
called a
“statistic”
when the Null Hypothesis is true
Step 2. Focus on a quantity that is
unlikely to be large
when the Null Hypothesis is true
e.g.
the difference in the means Δm=(meanA – meanB) is
unlikely to be large if the Null Hypothesis is true
Step 3.
Determine the value of statistic
for your problem
Step 3.
Determine the value of statistic
for your problem
e.g.
Δm = (meanA – meanB) = 5.2 – 4.1 = 1.1
Step 4.
Calculate that the probability that a the
observed value or greater would occur
if the Null Hypothesis were true
Step 4.
Calculate that the probability that a the
observed value or greater would occur
if the Null Hypothesis were true
P( Δm ≥ 1.1 ) = ?
Step 4.
Reject the Null Hypothesis
if such large values occur less than 5%
of the time
Step 4.
Reject the Null Hypothesis
if such large values occur less than 5%
of the time
rejecting the Null Hypothesis means that your result is
unlikely to be due to random variation
Part 5
An example
test of a particle size measuring device
manufacturer's specs
machine is perfectly calibrated
particle diameters scatter about true value
measurement error is
σd2 = 1 nm2
your test of the machine
purchase batch of 25 test particles
each exactly 100 nm in diameter
measure and tabulate their diameters
repeat with another batch a few weeks
later
Results of Test 1
Results of Test 2
Question 1
Is the Calibration Correct?
Null Hypothesis
The observed deviation of the average particle size
from its true value is due to random variation (as
contrasted to a bias in the calibration).
assume that the measurement error is Normally-distributed
with zero mean
and variance 1 nm2
the mean of 25 measurements has variance
1 nm2 / √25
the quantity
is Normal with zero mean and unit variance
in our case
= 0.278 and 0.243
the key question is
Are these unusually large values for Z ?
in our case
= 0.278 and 0.243
the key question is
Are these unusually large values for Z ?
actually, its immaterial whether dest is bigger or smaller than
dtrue =100, but only whether they’re different
so we should really ask whether |Zest|
is unusually large
P(Z’) is the cumulative probability from
-∞ to Z’
p(Z)
0
Z’
Z
The quantity we want is
P( |Z| > Zest )
p(Z)
-Zest
0
Z
Zest
which is
1 – [P(Zest) - P(-Zest)]
In MatLab
= 0.780 and 0.807
So values of |Z| greater than Zest are very common
In MatLab
= 0.780 and 0.807
So values of |Z| greater than Zest are very common
The Null Hypotheses cannot be rejected
Question 2
Is the variance in spec?
Null Hypothesis
The observed deviation of the variance from its
true value of 1 nm2 is due to random variation
(as contrasted to the machine being noisier
than the specs).
Results of the two tests
Results of the two tests
zero mean
unit variance
in our case
the key question is
Are these unusually large values for χ2 ?
= ?
In MatLab
= 0.640 and 0.499
In MatLab
= 0.640 and 0.499
So values of χ2 greater than χest2 are very common
The Null Hypotheses cannot be rejected
we will continue this scenario in the
next lecture