## Video Tutorial – Rolling 2 Dice: An Intuitive Explanation of The Central Limit Theorem

According to the central limit theorem, if

• $n$ random variables, $X_1, ..., X_n$, are independent and identically distributed,
• $n$ is sufficiently large,

then the distribution of their sample mean, $\bar{X_n}$, is approximately normal, and this approximation is better as $n$ increases.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the central limit theorem (CLT) is its validity for any parent distribution of $X_1, ..., X_n$.  In my new Youtube channel, you will find a video tutorial that provides an intuitive explanation of why this is true by considering a thought experiment of rolling 2 dice.  This video focuses on the intuition rather than the mathematics of the CLT.  In a later video, I will discuss the technical details of the CLT and how it applies to this example.

You can also watch the video below the fold!

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – Fractional Factorial Design and the Sparsity-of-Effects Principle

Consider again an experiment that seeks to determine the causal relationships between $G$ factors and the response, where $G > 1$.  Ideally, the sample size is large enough for a full factorial design to be used.  However, if the sample size is small and the number of possible treatments is large, then a fractional factorial design can be used instead.  Such a design assigns the experimental units to a select fraction of the treatments; these treatments are chosen carefully to investigate the most significant causal relationships, while leaving aside the insignificant ones.

When, then, are the significant causal relationships?  According to the sparsity-of-effects principle, it is unlikely that complex, higher-order effects exist, and that the most important effects are the lower-order effects.  Thus, assign the experimental units so that main (1st-order) effects and the 2nd-order interaction effects can be investigated.  This may neglect the discovery of a few significant higher-order effects, but that is the compromise that a fractional factorial design makes when the sample size available is low and the number of possible treatments is high.

## Mathematical and Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – The Central Limit Theorem Applies to the Sample Mean

Having taught and tutored introductory statistics numerous times, I often hear students misinterpret the Central Limit Theorem by saying that, as the sample size gets bigger, the distribution of the data approaches a normal distribution.  This is not true.  If your data come from a non-normal distribution, their distribution stays the same regardless of the sample size.

Remember: The Central Limit Theorem says that, if $X_1, X_2, ..., X_n$ is an independent and identically distributed sample of random variables, then the distribution of their sample mean is approximately normal, and this approximation gets better as the sample size gets bigger.

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – The Independent 2-Sample t-Test with Unequal Variances (Welch’s t-Test)

A common problem in statistics is determining whether or not the means of 2 populations are equal.  The independent 2-sample t-test is a popular parametric method to answer this question.  (In an earlier Statistics Lesson of the Day, I discussed how data collected from a completely randomized design with 1 binary factor can be analyzed by an independent 2-sample t-test.  I also discussed its possible use in the discovery of argon.)  I have learned 2 versions of the independent 2-sample t-test, and they differ on the variances of the 2 samples.  The 2 possibilities are

• equal variances
• unequal variances

Most statistics textbooks that I have read elaborate at length about the independent 2-sample t-test with equal variances (also called Student’s t-test).  However, the assumption of equal variances needs to be checked using the chi-squared test before proceeding with the Student’s t-test, yet this check does not seem to be universally done in practice.  Furthermore, conducting one test based on the results of another results possible inflation of Type 1 error (Ruxton, 2006).

Some books give due attention to the independent 2-sample t-test with unequal variances (also called Welch’s t-test), but some barely mention its value, and others do not even mention it at all.  I find this to be puzzling, because the assumption of equal variances is often violated in practice, and Welch’s t-test provides an easy solution to this problem.  There is a seemingly intimidating but straightforward calculation to approximate the number of degrees of freedom for Welch’s t-test, and this calculation is automatically incorporated in most software, including R and SAS.  Finally, Welch’s t-test removes the need to check for equal variances, and it is almost as powerful as Student’s t-test when the variances are equal (Ruxton, 2006).

For all of these reasons, I recommend Welch’s t-test when using the parametric approach to comparing the means of 2 populations.

### Reference

Graeme D. Ruxton.  “The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student’s t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test“.  Behavioral Ecology (July/August 2006) 17 (4): 688-690 first published online May 17, 2006

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – Additive Models vs. Interaction Models in 2-Factor Experimental Designs

In a recent “Machine Learning Lesson of the Day“, I discussed the difference between a supervised learning model in machine learning and a regression model in statistics.  In that lesson, I mentioned that a statistical regression model usually consists of a systematic component and a random component.  Today’s lesson strictly concerns the systematic component.

An additive model is a statistical regression model in which the systematic component is the arithmetic sum of the individual effects of the predictors.  Consider the simple case of an experiment with 2 factors.  If $Y$ is the response and $X_1$ and $X_2$ are the 2 predictors, then an additive linear model for the relationship between the response and the predictors is

$Y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_1 + \beta_2 X_2 + \varepsilon$

In other words, the effect of $X_1$ on $Y$ does not depend on the value of $X_2$, and the effect of $X_2$ on $Y$ does not depend on the value of $X_1$.

In contrast, an interaction model is a statistical regression model in which the systematic component is not the arithmetic sum of the individual effects of the predictors.  In other words, the effect of $X_1$ on $Y$ depends on the value of $X_2$, or the effect of $X_2$ on $Y$ depends on the value of $X_1$.  Thus, such a regression model would have 3 effects on the response:

1. $X_1$
2. $X_2$
3. the interaction effect of $X_1$ and $X_2$

For example, a full factorial design with 2 factors uses the 2-factor ANOVA model and assumes a linear relationship between the response and the above 3 effects.

$Y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_1 + \beta_2 X_2 + \beta_3 X_1 X_2 + \varepsilon$

Note that additive models and interaction models are not confined to experimental design; I have merely used experimental design to provide examples for these 2 types of models.

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – The Full Factorial Design

An experimenter may seek to determine the causal relationships between $G$ factors and the response, where $G > 1$.  On first instinct, you may be tempted to conduct $G$ separate experiments, each using the completely randomized design with 1 factor.  Often, however, it is possible to conduct 1 experiment with $G$ factors at the same time.  This is better than the first approach because

• it is faster
• it uses less resources to answer the same questions
• the interactions between the $G$ factors can be examined

Such an experiment requires the full factorial design.  After controlling for confounding variables and choosing the appropriate range and number of levels of the factor, the different treatments are applied to the different groups, and data on the resulting responses are collected.

The simplest full factorial experiment consists of 2 factors, each with 2 levels.  Such an experiment would result in $2 \times 2 = 4$ treatments, each being a combination of 1 level from the first factor and 1 level from the second factor.  Since this is a full factorial design, experimental units are independently assigned to all treatments.  The 2-factor ANOVA model is commonly used to analyze data from such designs.

In later lessons, I will discuss interactions and 2-factor ANOVA in more detail.

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – The Matched-Pair (or Paired) t-Test

My last lesson introduced the matched pairs experimental design, which is a special type of the randomized blocked design.  Let’s now talk about how to analyze the data from such a design.

Since the experimental units are organized in pairs, the units between pairs (blocks) are not independently assigned.  (The units within each pair are independently assigned – returning to the glove example, one hand is randomly chosen to wear the nitrile glove, while the other is randomly chosen to wear the latex glove.)  Because of this lack of independence between pairs, the independent 2-sample t-test is not applicable.  Instead, use the matched pair t-test (also called the paired or the paired  difference t-test).  This is really a 1-sample t-test that tests the difference between the responses of of the experimental and the control groups.

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – The Matched Pairs Experimental Design

The matched pairs design is a special type of the randomized blocked design in experimental design.  It has only 2 treatment levels (i.e. there is 1 factor, and this factor is binary), and a blocking variable divides the $n$ experimental units into $n/2$ pairs.  Within each pair (i.e. each block), the experimental units are randomly assigned to the 2 treatment groups (e.g. by a coin flip).  The experimental units are divided into pairs such that homogeneity is maximized within each pair.

For example, a lab safety officer wants to compare the durability of nitrile and latex gloves for chemical experiments.  She wants to conduct an experiment with 30 nitrile gloves and 30 latex gloves to test her hypothesis.  She does her best to draw a random sample of 30 students in her university for her experiment, and they all perform the same organic synthesis using the same procedures to see which type of gloves lasts longer.

She could use a completely randomized design so that a random sample of 30 hands get the 30 nitrile gloves, and the other 30 hands get the 30 latex gloves.  However, since lab habits are unique to each person, this poses a confounding variable – durability can be affected by both the material and a student’s lab habits, and the lab safety officer only wants to study the effect of the material.  Thus, a randomized block design should be used instead so that each student acts as a blocking variable – 1 hand gets a nitrile glove, and 1 hand gets a latex glove.  Once the gloves have been given to the student, the type of glove is randomly assigned to each hand; some may get the nitrile glove on their left hand, and some may get it on their right hand.  Since this design involves one binary factor and blocks that divide the experimental units into pairs, this is a matched pairs design.

## Statistics and Chemistry Lesson of the Day – Illustrating Basic Concepts in Experimental Design with the Synthesis of Ammonia

To summarize what we have learned about experimental design in the past few Applied Statistics Lessons of the Day, let’s use an example from physical chemistry to illustrate these basic principles.

Ammonia (NH3) is widely used as a fertilizer in industry.  It is commonly synthesized by the Haber process, which involves a reaction between hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas.

N2 + 3 H2 → 2 NH3   (ΔH = −92.4 kJ·mol−1)

Recall that ΔH is the change in enthalpy.  Under constant pressure (which is the case for most chemical reactions), ΔH is the heat absorbed or released by the system.

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – The Completely Randomized Design with 1 Factor

The simplest experimental design is the completely randomized design with 1 factor.  In this design, each experimental unit is randomly assigned to each factor level.  This design is most useful for a homogeneous population (one that does not have major differences between any sub-populations).  It is appealing because of its simplicity and flexibility – it can be used for a factor with any number of levels, and different treatments can have different sample sizes.  After controlling for confounding variables and choosing the appropriate range and number of levels of the factor, the different treatments are applied to the different groups, and data on the resulting responses are collected.  The means of the response variable in the different groups are compared; if there are significant differences, then there is evidence to suggest that the factor and the response have a causal relationship.  The single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model is most commonly used to analyze the data in such an experiment, but it does assume that the data in each group have a normal distribution, and that all groups have equal variance.  The Kruskal-Wallis test is a non-parametric alternative to ANOVA in analyzing data from single-factor completely randomized experiments.

If the factor has 2 levels, you may think that an independent 2-sample t-test with equal variance can also be used to analyze the data.  This is true, but the square of the t-test statistic in this case is just the F-test statistic in a single-factor ANOVA with 2 groups.  Thus, the results of these 2 tests are the same.  ANOVA generalizes the independent 2-sample t-test with equal variance to more than 2 groups.

Some textbooks state that “random assignment” means random assignment of experimental units to treatments, whereas other textbooks state that it means random assignment of treatments to experimental units.  I don’t think that there is any difference between these 2 definitions, but I welcome your thoughts in the comments.

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – Positive Control in Experimental Design

In my recent lesson on controlling for confounders in experimental design, the control group was described as one that received a neutral or standard treatment, and the standard treatment may simply be nothing.  This is a negative control group.  Not all experiments require a negative control group; some experiments instead have positive control group.

A positive control group is a group of experimental units that receive a treatment that is known to cause an effect on the response.  Such a causal relationship would have been previously established, and its inclusion in the experiment allows a new treatment to be compared to this existing treatment.  Again, both the positive control group and the experimental group experience the same experimental procedures and conditions except for the treatment.  The existing treatment with the known effect on the response is applied to the positive control group, and the new treatment with the unknown effect on the response is applied to the experimental group.  If the new treatment has a causal relationship with the response, both the positive control group and the experimental group should have the same responses.  (This assumes, of course, that the response can only be changed in 1 direction.  If the response can increase or decrease in value (or, more generally, change in more than 1 way), then it is possible for the positive control group and the experimental group to have the different responses.

In short, in an experiment with a positive control group, an existing treatment is known to “work”, and the new treatment is being tested to see if it can “work” just as well or even better.  Experiments to test for the effectiveness of a new medical therapies or a disease detector often have positive controls; there are existing therapies or detectors that work well, and the new therapy or detector is being evaluated for its effectiveness.

Experiments with positive controls are useful for ensuring that the experimental procedures and conditions proceed as planned.  If the positive control does not show the expected response, then something is wrong with the experimental procedures or conditions, and any “good” result from the new treatment should be considered with skepticism.

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – Choosing the Range of Levels for Quantitative Factors in Experimental Design

In addition to choosing the number of levels for a quantitative factor in designing an experiment, the experimenter must also choose the range of the levels of the factor.

• If the levels are too close together, then there may not be a noticeable difference in the corresponding responses.
• If the levels are too far apart, then an important trend in the causal relationship could be missed.

Consider the following example of making sourdough bread from Gänzle et al. (1998).  The experimenters sought to determine the relationship between temperature and the growth rates of 2 strains of bacteria and 1 strain of yeast, and they used mathematical models and experimental data to study this relationship.  The plots below show the results for Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis LTH2581 (Panel A) and LTH1729 (Panel B), and Candida milleri LTH H198 (Panel C).  The figures contain the predicted curves (solid and dashed lines) and the actual data (circles).  Notice that, for all 3 organisms,

• the relationship is relatively “flat” in the beginning, so choosing temperatures that are too close together at low temperatures (e.g. 1 and 2 degrees Celsius) would not yield noticeably different growth rates
• the overall relationship between growth rate and temperature is rather complicated, and choosing temperatures that are too far apart might miss important trends.

Once again, the experimenter’s prior knowledge and hypothesis can be very useful in making this decision.  In this case, the experimenters had the benefit of their mathematical models in guiding their hypothesis and choosing the range of temperatures for collecting the data on the growth rates.

#### Reference:

Gänzle, Michael G., Michaela Ehmann, and Walter P. Hammes. “Modeling of growth of Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis and Candida milleri in response to process parameters of sourdough fermentation.” Applied and environmental microbiology 64.7 (1998): 2616-2623.

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – Choosing the Number of Levels for Factors in Experimental Design

The experimenter needs to decide the number of levels for each factor in an experiment.

• For a qualitative (categorical) factor, the number of levels may simply be the number of categories for that factor.  However, because of cost constraints, an experimenter may choose to drop a certain category.  Based on the experimenter’s prior knowledge or hypothesis, the category with the least potential for showing a cause-and-effect relationship between the factor and the response should be dropped.
• For a quantitative (numeric) factor, the number of levels should reflect the cause-and-effect relationship between the factor and the response.  Again, the experimenter’s prior knowledge or hypothesis is valuable in making this decision.
• If the relationship in the chosen range of the factor is hypothesized to be roughly linear, then 2 levels (perhaps the minimum and the maximum) should be sufficient.
• If the relationship in the chosen range of the factor is hypothesized to be roughly quadratic, then 3 levels would be useful.  Often, 3 levels are enough.
• If the relationship in the chosen range of the factor is hypothesized to be more complicated than a quadratic relationship, consider using 4 or more levels.

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day: Sample Size and Replication in Experimental Design

The goal of an experiment is to determine

1. whether or not there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the factor and the response
2. the strength of the causal relationship, should such a relationship exist.

To answer these questions, the response variable is measured in both the control group and the experimental group.  If there is a difference between the 2 responses, then there is evidence to suggest that the causal relationship exists, and the difference can be measured and quantified.

However, in most* experiments, there is random variation in the response.  Random variation exists in the natural sciences, and there is even more of it in the social sciences.  Thus, an observed difference between the control and experimental groups could be mistakenly attributed to a cause-and-effect relationship when the source of the difference is really just random variation.  In short, the difference may simply be due to the noise rather than the signal.

To detect an actual difference beyond random variation (i.e. to obtain a higher signal-to-noise ratio), it is important to use replication to obtain a sufficiently large sample size in the experiment.  Replication is the repeated application of the treatments to multiple independently assigned experimental units.  (Recall that randomization is an important part of controlling for confounding variables in an experiment.  Randomization ensures that the experimental units are independently assigned to the different treatments.)  The number of independently assigned experimental units that receive the same treatment is the sample size.

*Deterministic computer experiments are unlike most experiments; they do not have random variation in the responses.

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – Basic Terminology in Experimental Design #2: Controlling for Confounders

A well designed experiment must have good control, which is the reduction of effects from confounding variables.  There are several ways to do so:

• Include a control group.  This group will receive a neutral treatment or a standard treatment.  (This treatment may simply be nothing.)  The experimental group will receive the new treatment or treatment of interest.  The response in the experimental group will be compared to the response in the control group to assess the effect of the new treatment or treatment of interest.  Any effect from confounding variables will affect both the control group and the experimental group equally, so the only difference between the 2 groups should be due to the new treatment or treatment of interest.
• In medical studies with patients as the experimental units, it is common to include a placebo group.  Patients in the placebo group get a treatment that is known to have no effect.  This accounts for the placebo effect.
• For example, in a drug study, a patient in the placebo group may get a sugar pill.
• In experiments with human or animal subjects, participants and/or the experimenters are often blinded.  This means that they do not know which treatment the participant received.  This ensures that knowledge of receiving a particular treatment – for either the participant or the experimenters - is not a confounding variable.  An experiment that blinds both the participants and the experimenters is called a double-blinded experiment.
• For confounding variables that are difficult or impossible to control for, the experimental units should be assigned to the control group and the experimental group by randomization.  This can be done with random number tables, flipping a coin, or random number generators from computers.  This ensures that confounding effects affect both the control group and the experimental group roughly equally.
• For example, an experimenter wants to determine if the HPV vaccine will make new students immune to HPV.  There will be 2 groups: the control group will not receive the vaccine, and the experimental group will receive the vaccine.  If the experimenter can choose students from 2 schools for her study, then the students should be randomly assigned into the 2 groups, so that each group will have roughly the same number of students from each school.  This would minimize the confounding effect of the schools.

## Applied Statistics Lesson of the Day – Basic Terminology in Experimental Design #1

Experiment: A procedure to determine the causal relationship between 2 variables – an explanatory variable and a response variable.  The value of the explanatory variable is changed, and the value of the response variable is observed for each value of the explantory variable.

• An experiment can have 2 or more explanatory variables and 2 or more response variables.
• In my experience, I find that most experiments have 1 response variable, but many experiments have 2 or more explanatory variables.  The interactions between the multiple explanatory variables are often of interest.
• All other variables are held constant in this process to avoid confounding.

Explanatory Variable or Factor: The variable whose values are set by the experimenter.  This variable is the cause in the hypothesis.  (*Many people call this the independent variable.  I discourage this usage, because “independent” means something very different in statistics.)

Response Variable: The variable whose values are observed by the experimenter as the explanatory variable’s value is changed.  This variable is the effect in the hypothesis.  (*Many people call this the dependent variable.  Further to my previous point about “independent variables”, dependence means something very different in statistics, and I discourage using this usage.)

Factor Level: Each possible value of the factor (explanatory variable).  A factor must have at least 2 levels.

Treatment: Each possible combination of factor levels.

• If the experiment has only 1 explanatory variable, then each treatment is simply each factor level.
• If the experiment has 2 explanatory variables, X and Y, then each treatment is a combination of 1 factor level from X and 1 factor level from Y.  Such combining of factor levels generalizes to experiments with more than 2 explanatory variables.

Experimental Unit: The object on which a treatment is applied.  This can be anything – person, group of people, animal, plant, chemical, guitar, baseball, etc.

## Exploratory Data Analysis: Combining Histograms and Density Plots to Examine the Distribution of the Ozone Pollution Data from New York in R

#### Introduction

This is a follow-up post to my recent introduction of histograms.  Previously, I presented the conceptual foundations of histograms and used a histogram to approximate the distribution of the “Ozone” data from the built-in data set “airquality” in R.  Today, I will examine this distribution in more detail by overlaying the histogram with parametric and non-parametric kernel density plots.  I will finally answer the question that I have asked (and hinted to answer) several times: Are the “Ozone” data normally distributed, or is another distribution more suitable?

Read the rest of this post to learn how to combine histograms with density curves like this above plot!

This is another post in my continuing series on exploratory data analysis (EDA).  Previous posts in this series on EDA include

## Exploratory Data Analysis – Kernel Density Estimation and Rug Plots in R on Ozone Data in New York and Ozonopolis

Update on July 15, 2013:

Thanks to Harlan Nelson for noting on AnalyticBridge that the ozone concentrations for both New York and Ozonopolis are non-negative quantities, so their kernel density plot should have non-negative support sets.  This has been corrected in this post by

- defining new variables called max.ozone and max.ozone2

- using the options “from = 0″ and “to = max.ozone” or “to = max.ozone2″ in the density() function when defining density.ozone and density.ozone2 in the R code.

Update on February 2, 2014:

Harlan also noted in the above comment that any truncated kernel density estimator (KDE) from density() in R does not integrate to 1 over its support set.  Thanks to Julian Richer Daily for suggesting on AnalyticBridge to scale any truncated kernel density estimator (KDE) from density() by its integral to get a KDE that integrates to 1 over its support set.  I have used my own function for trapezoidal integration to do so, and this has been added below.

I thank everyone for your patience while I took the time to write a post about numerical integration before posting this correction.  I was in the process of moving between jobs and cities when Harlan first brought this issue to my attention, and I had also been planning a major expansion of this blog since then.  I am glad that I have finally started a series on numerical integration to provide the conceptual background for the correction of this error, and I hope that they are helpful.  I recognize that this is a rather late correction, and I apologize for any confusion.

For the sake of brevity, this post has been created from the second half of a previous long post on kernel density estimation.  This second half focuses on constructing kernel density plots and rug plots in R.  The first half focused on the conceptual foundations of kernel density estimation.

#### Introduction

This post follows the recent introduction of the conceptual foundations of kernel density estimation.  It uses the “Ozone” data from the built-in “airquality” data set in R and the previously simulated ozone data for the fictitious city of “Ozonopolis” to illustrate how to construct kernel density plots in R.  It also introduces rug plots, shows how they can complement kernel density plots, and shows how to construct them in R.

This is another post in a recent series on exploratory data analysis, which has included posts on descriptive statistics, box plots, violin plots, the conceptual foundations of empirical cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), and how to plot empirical CDFs in R.

Read the rest of this post to learn how to create the above combination of a kernel density plot and a rug plot!

## Exploratory Data Analysis: 2 Ways of Plotting Empirical Cumulative Distribution Functions in R

#### Introduction

Continuing my recent series on exploratory data analysis (EDA), and following up on the last post on the conceptual foundations of empirical cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), this post shows how to plot them in R.  (Previous posts in this series on EDA include descriptive statistics, box plots, kernel density estimation, and violin plots.)

I will plot empirical CDFs in 2 ways:

1. using the built-in ecdf() and plot() functions in R
2. calculating and plotting the cumulative probabilities against the ordered data

Continuing from the previous posts in this series on EDA, I will use the “Ozone” data from the built-in “airquality” data set in R.  Recall that this data set has missing values, and, just as before, this problem needs to be addressed when constructing plots of the empirical CDFs.

Recall the plot of the empirical CDF of random standard normal numbers in my earlier post on the conceptual foundations of empirical CDFs.  That plot will be compared to the plots of the empirical CDFs of the ozone data to check if they came from a normal distribution.

## Exploratory Data Analysis: Conceptual Foundations of Empirical Cumulative Distribution Functions

#### Introduction

Continuing my recent series on exploratory data analysis (EDA), this post focuses on the conceptual foundations of empirical cumulative distribution functions (CDFs); in a separate post, I will show how to plot them in R.  (Previous posts in this series include descriptive statistics, box plots, kernel density estimation, and violin plots.)

To give you a sense of what an empirical CDF looks like, here is an example created from 100 randomly generated numbers from the standard normal distribution.  The ecdf() function in R was used to generate this plot; the entire code is provided at the end of this post, but read my next post for more detail on how to generate plots of empirical CDFs in R.

Read to rest of this post to learn what an empirical CDF is and how to produce the above plot!