Scribd
Upload
45 views6 pages

Non Parametric Homework-9

The document contains sample code for performing chi-squared goodness of fit tests to examine if data follows a Poisson distribution. The null hypothesis is that the data are from random variables with a Poisson distribution. Chi-squared test statistics are calculated for two examples and compared to the critical value from the chi-squared distribution. Both examples exceed the critical value, so the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating there is not enough evidence that the data follows a Poisson distribution.

Uploaded by

Arjun Bhusal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
45 views6 pages

Non Parametric Homework-9

The document contains sample code for performing chi-squared goodness of fit tests to examine if data follows a Poisson distribution. The null hypothesis is that the data are from random variables with a Poisson distribution. Chi-squared test statistics are calculated for two examples and compared to the critical value from the chi-squared distribution. Both examples exceed the critical value, so the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating there is not enough evidence that the data follows a Poisson distribution.

Uploaded by

Arjun Bhusal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Homework-9

Madan Neupane

2022-10-27

Answer no. example(3.25)


H 0 :W =0 v s H 0 : W ≠ 0
#install.packages("epitools")
library(epitools)
gender <- matrix(c(20,80,50,400),
nrow = 2, ncol = 2, byrow = TRUE,
dimnames = list(c("Male", "female"),
c("Success", "Failure")))
gender

## Success Failure
## Male 20 80
## female 50 400

oddsratio(gender)

## $data
## Success Failure Total
## Male 20 80 100
## female 50 400 450
## Total 70 480 550
##
## $measure
## NA
## odds ratio with 95% C.I. estimate lower upper
## Male 1.000000 NA NA
## female 2.004587 1.109171 3.514536
##
## $p.value
## NA
## two-sided midp.exact fisher.exact chi.square
## Male NA NA NA
## female 0.02207671 0.0202162 0.01584399
##
## $correction
## [1] FALSE
##
## attr(,"method")
## [1] "median-unbiased estimate & mid-p exact CI"
At α =0.05
Since pvalue=0.0158 < α =0.05 . Then reject null hypothesis.
Therefore there is enough evidence to conclude that the odds ratio test of male and female
is statistically significant.

Answer no. (3.67)


H 0 : P11k =P1 .k∗P.1 k v s H 0 : P11k <¿ P1 . k∗P.1k where K =1,2,3,4
H 0=O d d s f o r r R e gu l a r f u e l i s s a m e a s t h e o d d s f o r a n y o f t y p e s o f f u e l vs
H a =Od d s f o r r R e g ul a r f u e l i s n o t s a me a s t h e o d d s f o r a n y o f t y p e s o f f u e l
#odds ratio test using Mantel and Haenszel
gas<-
array(c(209,384,363,157,116,321,389,229,121,329,284,173,336,141,388,184),
dim=c(2,2,4), dimnames = list(Timesperweek =c(">1","<=1"),
Vehicles=c("Car","Truck"), Fuel=c("Regular","Unleashed","Super
Unleashed","Diesel")))
gas

## , , Fuel = Regular
##
## Vehicles
## Timesperweek Car Truck
## >1 209 363
## <=1 384 157
##
## , , Fuel = Unleashed
##
## Vehicles
## Timesperweek Car Truck
## >1 116 389
## <=1 321 229
##
## , , Fuel = Super Unleashed
##
## Vehicles
## Timesperweek Car Truck
## >1 121 284
## <=1 329 173
##
## , , Fuel = Diesel
##
## Vehicles
## Timesperweek Car Truck
## >1 336 388
## <=1 141 184

mantelhaen.test(gas)
##
## Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test with continuity correction
##
## data: gas
## Mantel-Haenszel X-squared = 279.33, df = 1, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true common odds ratio is not equal to 1
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.3013742 0.3897974
## sample estimates:
## common odds ratio
## 0.3427461

At α =0.05
Since X-squared(TS)=279.33 < X-squared(table)=3.841459. Then reject null hypothesis.
Therefore there is enough evidence to conclude that the common oddsratio for rRegular
fuel is higher.

Answer no .(3.75)
H 0 : Pm a l e =Pf em a l e v s H 0 : Pm a l e < P f e ma l e
Attendence <- matrix(c(3,2,10,15),
nrow = 2, ncol = 2, byrow = TRUE,
dimnames = list(c("Male", "female"),
c("Less than 5 Absenses", "More than 5 Absenses")))
Attendence

## Less than 5 Absenses More than 5 Absenses


## Male 3 2
## female 10 15

chisq.test(Attendence, simulate.p.value = FALSE,correct = FALSE)

## Warning in chisq.test(Attendence, simulate.p.value = FALSE, correct =


FALSE):
## Chi-squared approximation may be incorrect

##
## Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data: Attendence
## X-squared = 0.67873, df = 1, p-value = 0.41

qchisq(1-0.05,1)

## [1] 3.841459

At α =0.05
Since X-squared(TS)=0.67873 < X-squared(table)=3.841459. Then fails to reject null
hypothesis.
Therefore there is not enough evidence to conclude that the proportion of females failing
their course due to at least 5 absences is higher than males.

Answer no. (3.82)


H 0 : Pi j=Pi .∗P. j v s H 0 : Pi j ≠ P i.∗P. j ( F o r a t l e a s t o n e ) where i,j =1,2, i≠ j
shop <- matrix(c(90,40,40,50),
nrow = 2, ncol = 2, byrow = TRUE,
dimnames = list(c("Men", "Women"),
c("Work Out", "Don't Work Out")))
shop

## Work Out Don't Work Out


## Men 90 40
## Women 40 50

chisq.test(shop)

##
## Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data: shop
## X-squared = 12.51, df = 1, p-value = 0.0004048

qchisq(1-0.05,1)

## [1] 3.841459

At α =0.05
Since X-squared(TS)=12.51 > X-squared(table)=3.841. Then reject null hypothesis.
Therefore there is enough evidence to conclude that the gender is unrelated to working out
against the alternative that gender and working out are dependent.

Answer no. example(4.4)


Test goodness of fit for Poisson distribution
H 0=d at a a r e f r o ma r a n d o m v a r ia b l e s P o i s s o n d i s t r ib u t i o n
H a =d at a a r e n o t f r o m a r a n d o m v a r i a b l e s P oi s s o n d i s t r ib u t i o n
data<- data.frame(c(0:12),c(24,16,16,18,15,9,6,5,3,4,3,0,1))
names(data) <- c('borers','frequency')
n <- sum(data$frequency) #120

mean_pois <- sum(data$borers*data$frequency)/n #3.166667


prob_pois <- dpois(0:12,lambda = mean_pois) ##Poisson Expected proportion

expected_frequency <- round(prob_pois*n,3) ##e_i


data$e_i <- c(round(prob_pois*n,3))
data

## borers frequency e_i


## 1 0 24 5.057
## 2 1 16 16.015
## 3 2 16 25.357
## 4 3 18 26.765
## 5 4 15 21.189
## 6 5 9 13.420
## 7 6 6 7.083
## 8 7 5 3.204
## 9 8 3 1.268
## 10 9 4 0.446
## 11 10 3 0.141
## 12 11 0 0.041
## 13 12 1 0.011

##Test Statistics
Chisquare <- sum((data$frequency-data$e_i)^2/data$e_i)

df <- nrow(data)
qchisq(0.95,df-1)

## [1] 21.02607

OR,
data1<- data.frame(c(0:8),c(24,16,16,18,15,9,6,5,11))
names(data1) <- c('borers','frequency')
n1 <- sum(data$frequency) #120

mean_pois1 <- sum(data1$borers*data1$frequency)/n1 #3.166667

prob_pois1 <- dpois(0:8,lambda = mean_pois1) ##Poisson Expected proportion

expected_frequency1 <- round(prob_pois1*n1,3) ##e_i


data1$e_i1 <- c(round(prob_pois1*n1,3))
data1

## borers frequency e_i1


## 1 0 24 5.683
## 2 1 16 17.333
## 3 2 16 26.433
## 4 3 18 26.874
## 5 4 15 20.491
## 6 5 9 12.500
## 7 6 6 6.354
## 8 7 5 2.769
## 9 8 11 1.056

##Test Statistics
Chisquare1 <- sum((data1$frequency-data1$e_i1)^2/data1$e_i)
Chisquare1

## [1] 164.0966

df <- nrow(data1)
qchisq(0.95,df-1)

## [1] 15.50731

At α =0.05
Since X-squared(TS)=259.33 or 164.0966 > X-squared(table)=3.841. Then reject null
hypothesis.
Therefore there is not enough evidence to conclude that the data are from a random
variable Poisson distribution.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy