Note that all examples are run without parallel processing and a small number of simulation runs B to satisfy CRAN submission rules.
This package brings together a number of routines for the two sample problem for multivariate data. There are two data sets x and y and we want to test whether they were generated by the same probability distribution.
The highlights of this package are:
We generate two-dimensional data sets of size 100 and 120 respectively from multivariate normal distributions and run the test:
x1 = mvtnorm::rmvnorm(100, c(0,0))
y1 = mvtnorm::rmvnorm(120, c(0,0))
twosample_test(x1, y1, B=B, maxProcessor = 1)
#> Data is assumed to be continuous
#> $statistics
#> KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5 AZ BF
#> 0.108300 0.176600 0.075930 0.562000 1.108300 2.036700 0.006952 0.250400
#> BG FR NN0 CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 Ball
#> 0.763600 -1.102000 0.227200 -1.102000 1.441500 1.127300 1.285200 0.006210
#> ES EP
#> 15.452000 32.531000
#>
#> $p.values
#> KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5 AZ BF BG FR NN0
#> 0.7650 0.7600 0.7500 0.8700 0.1200 0.3450 0.4500 0.5500 0.3450 0.1353 0.0000
#> CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 Ball ES EP
#> 0.1353 0.4864 0.1298 0.3027 0.3761 0.3479 0.1144
Arguments of twosample_test
The routine chiTS.cont (included in the package) finds either the test statistic or the p value of a chi square test in two dimensions. First we need to set
this list is passed to chiTS.cont and tells the routine to
twosample_test(x1, y1, TS=chiTS.cont, TSextra=TSextra,
B=B, maxProcessor = 1)
#> Data is assumed to be continuous
#> $statistics
#> Chisq Stat 3,3 Chisq Stat 3,4
#> 4.2376 16.3280
#>
#> $p.values
#> Chisq Stat 3,3 Chisq Stat 3,4
#> 0.840 0.145
Arguments and output of new test routine for continuous data
The arguments have to be x and y for the two data sets and (optionally) a list called TSextra for any additional input needed to find test statistic.
Note that the output vector of the routine has to be a named vector. If the routine is written in Rcpp parallel programming is not available.
If several tests are run one can use the routine twosample_test_adjusted_pvalue to find a p value that is adjusted for simultaneous testing:
The routine twosample_power allows us to estimate the power of the tests.
Let’s say we want to estimate the power when one data set comes from a multivariate standard normal distribution and the other from a normal distribution with a different covariance. We first need a function that generates these data sets:
f=function(a=0) {
S=diag(2)
x=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(100, sigma = S)
S[1,2]=a
S[2,1]=a
y=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(120, sigma = S)
list(x=x, y=y)
}
Now we can run
twosample_power(f, c(0,0.5), B=B, maxProcessor=1)
#> KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5 AZ BF BG FR NN0 CF1 CF2 CF3
#> 0 0.080 0.11 0.050 0.035 0.055 0.04 0.045 0.055 0.04 0.05 1 0.05 0.05 0.04
#> 0.5 0.135 0.21 0.255 0.280 0.255 0.29 0.240 0.245 0.04 0.26 1 0.26 0.11 0.24
#> CF4 Ball ES EP
#> 0 0.055 0.055 0.045 0.040
#> 0.5 0.185 0.115 0.435 0.455
Arguments of twosample_power
Again the user can provide their own routine:
twosample_power(f, c(0,0.5), TS=chiTS.cont,
TSextra=TSextra, B=B, maxProcessor=1)
#> Chisq Stat 3,3 Chisq Stat 3,4
#> 0 0.045 0.07
#> 0.5 0.645 0.58
The routine that generates data can also have two arguments:
f1=function(a=0, n=100) {
S=diag(2)
x=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(100, sigma = S)
S[1,2]=a
S[2,1]=a
y=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(n, sigma = S)
list(x=x, y=y)
}
If the user routine returns p values run
First note that tests for discrete data are implemented only in two dimensions.
We consider the case of data from binomial distributions:
vals_x = 0:5 #possible values of first random variable
vals_y = 0:6 #possible values of second random variable
a1x = rbinom(1000, 5, 0.5)
a2x = rbinom(1000, 6, 0.5)
a1y = rbinom(1200, 5, 0.5)
a2y = rbinom(1200, 6, 0.5)
x2=matrix(0, 6*7, 4)
colnames(x2)=c("vals_x", "vals_y", "x", "y")
x2[, 1]=rep(vals_x, length(vals_y))
x2[, 2]=rep(vals_y, each=length(vals_x))
for(i in 0:5) {
for(j in 0:6) {
x2[x2[,1]==i&x2[,2]==j, 3]=sum(a1x==i&a2x==j)
x2[x2[,1]==i&x2[,2]==j, 4]=sum(a1y==i&a2y==j)
}
}
twosample_test(x2, B=B, maxProcessor = 1)
#> Data is assumed to be discrete
#> $statistics
#> KS K CvM AD NN AZ BF ChiSquare
#> 0.03333 0.05716 0.17180 1.11780 3.53210 0.04232 0.06514 28.20800
#>
#> $p.values
#> KS K CvM AD NN AZ BF ChiSquare
#> 0.4700 0.3400 0.3650 0.3350 0.5650 0.3350 0.3050 0.7469
Arguments of twosample_test
As in the case of continuous data the arguments include TS, TSextra, minexpcount, rnull, maxProcessor and doMethods. In addition we now have
Again one can find a p value adjusted for simultaneous testing:
The routine chiTS.disc (included in package) does a chi-square test for discrete data:
Again we need a routine that generates data sets. In the discrete case this has to be a routine whose output is a matrix with columns named vals_x, vals_y, x and y
g=function(a=0) {
x=cbind(rbinom(1000, 5, 0.5), rpois(1000, 1))
x[,2][x[,2]>5]=5
lambda=1+a*x[,1]/5
y=cbind(rbinom(1200, 5, 0.5), rpois(1200, lambda))
y[,2][y[,2]>5]=5
vx=0:5
vy=0:5
A=matrix(0,length(vx)*length(vy),4)
k=0
for(i in seq_along(vx))
for(j in seq_along(vy)) {
k=k+1
A[k,1]=vx[i]
A[k,2]=vy[j]
A[k,3]=sum(x[,1]==vx[i] & x[,2]==vy[j])
A[k,4]=sum(y[,1]==vx[i] & y[,2]==vy[j])
}
colnames(A)=c("vals_x", "vals_y", "x", "y")
A
}
twosample_power(g, c(0, 0.25, 0.5), B=200, maxProcessor=1)
#> KS K CvM AD NN AZ BF Chisquare
#> 0 0.085 0.040 0.075 0.080 0.035 0.045 0.045 0.035
#> 0.25 0.415 0.315 0.495 0.495 0.090 0.115 0.115 0.240
#> 0.5 0.990 0.965 0.990 0.990 0.670 0.140 0.200 0.910
or using a user supplied test:
TSextra=list(which="statistic")
twosample_power(g, c(0, 0.25, 0.5), B=200,
TS=chiTS.disc, TSextra=TSextra, maxProcessor=1)
#> Chisq Stat
#> 0 0.015
#> 0.25 0.100
#> 0.5 0.845
TSextra=list(which="pvalue")
twosample_power(g, c(0, 0.25, 0.5), B=200,
TS=chiTS.disc, TSextra=TSextra, With.p.value = TRUE,
maxProcessor=1)
#> Chisq P
#> 0 0.030
#> 0.25 0.195
#> 0.5 0.830
We have a data set x and we want to test whether it comes from a bivariate normal distribution. Instead of a goodness-of-fit test, however, we generate a Monte Carlo data set y from a bivariate normal rv with mean and covariance estimated from the real data set x, and then run a two-sample test.
In this scenario the two data sets are not independent, and the permutation approach to finding p values is extremely conservative, that is, the true type I error probability is much smaller than the nominal one. This in turn makes the power of the test much lower as well. Instead one can supply a routine that generates new data, just as one would in a goodness-of-fit test. Moreover, all the methods who find their own p values will now fail completely and so sshould not be run.
# generate real and MC data sets:
f=function(mu) {
x=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(100, c(mu, mu))
y=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(100, apply(x, 2, mean), cor(x))
list(x=x, y=y)
}
#True data is a mixture of normal and uniform
g=function(alpha=0) {
x=rbind(mvtnorm::rmvnorm((1-alpha)*100, c(0, 0)),
matrix(runif(200*alpha),ncol=2))
y=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(100, apply(x, 2, mean), cor(x))
list(x=x, y=y)
}
# generate two-sample data set
rnull=function(dta) {
x=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(nrow(dta$x), apply(dta$x, 2, mean), cor(dta$x))
y=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(nrow(x), apply(x, 2, mean), cor(x))
list(x=x, y=y)
}
# Only run these methods for hypbrid problem
mt=c("KS", "K", "CvM", "AD", "NN1", "NN5", "AZ", "BF", "BG")
# Null hypothesis is true:
twosample_power(f, c(0, 1), doMethods = mt, B=200, maxProcessor = 1)
#> KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5 AZ BF BG
#> 0 0.025 0.010 0.02 0.010 0.015 0.04 0.015 0.00 0.05
#> 1 0.025 0.045 0.01 0.015 0.045 0.02 0.010 0.01 0.03
twosample_power(f, c(0, 1), rnull=rnull, B=200, maxProcessor = 1)
#> KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5 AZ BF BG
#> 0 0.025 0.020 0.08 0.07 0.050 0.06 0.050 0.050 0.050
#> 1 0.070 0.075 0.05 0.04 0.035 0.06 0.035 0.055 0.035
# Null hypothesis is false:
twosample_power(g, c(0, 0.5), doMethods = mt, B=200, maxProcessor = 1)
#> KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5 AZ BF BG
#> 0 0.00 0.035 0.000 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.005 0.000 0.060
#> 0.5 0.87 1.000 0.505 0.500 0.72 0.87 1.000 0.995 0.995
twosample_power(g, c(0, 0.5), rnull=rnull, B=200, maxProcessor = 1)
#> KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5 AZ BF BG
#> 0 0.045 0.035 0.045 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.045 0.06 0.035
#> 0.5 0.940 1.000 0.765 0.79 0.81 0.93 0.995 1.00 1.000
As we can see, the true type I error using the permutation method is much smaller than the nominal \(\alpha=0.05\), and so the power is lower as well.
The routine run.studies allows the user to quickly compare the power of a new test with the power of the included tests for 25 different combinations of null hypothesis vs alternative for continuous data and 20 for discrete data. It also allows the user to find the power for those case studies for different sample size and type I error probabilities.
As an example, let’s compare the power of the test based on differences in means to the included ones for two of the studies.
Note that these examples are not run so the package can be submitted to CRAN:
Arguments of run.studies
The data set power_studies_results included in MD2sample has the results for the included tests using a sample size of 200, a true type I error probability of 0.05 and two values of the parameter under the alternative, on which makes the null hypothesis true and one which makes it false. If the user wants different numbers he can run:
run.studies(Continuous=TRUE,
study=c("NormalD2", "tD2"),
param_alt=cbind(c(0.4, 0.4), c(0.7, 0.7)),
alpha=0.1, B=100)
Say the new method can find p values without simulation:
Note that the routine should return a named vector with the p values.
TSextra=list(which="pvalue", nbins=cbind(c(3,3), c(4,4)))
run.studies(Continuous=TRUE,
study=c("NormalD2", "tD2"),
TS=chiTS.cont,
TSextra=TSextra,
With.p.value = TRUE,
B=500,
SuppressMessages = TRUE,
maxProcessor=1)
#> Average number of times a test is close to best:
#> BG Ball CF2 NN0 KS
#> 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0
#> K NN1 CF4 FR CF1
#> 6.0 6.0 8.0 10.5 10.5
#> CF3 CvM NN5 AD BF
#> 10.5 11.0 13.0 13.5 15.0
#> AZ ES EP Chisq Pval 3,4 Chisq Pval 3,4
#> 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.5 19.5
#> Chisq Pval 3,4 Chisq Pval 3,4 KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5
#> NormalD2 0.986 0.986 0.418 0.430 0.552 0.642 0.484 0.664
#> tD2 0.960 0.960 0.396 0.393 0.539 0.635 0.357 0.502
#> AZ BF BG FR NN0 CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 Ball ES
#> NormalD2 0.884 0.831 0.050 0.601 0.395 0.601 0.377 0.601 0.502 0.302 0.973
#> tD2 0.817 0.781 0.067 0.491 0.312 0.491 0.307 0.491 0.401 0.200 0.863
#> EP
#> NormalD2 0.978
#> tD2 0.933
Consider the following situation. We have a data set \(x\) and want to test whether it comes from some probability distribution F, that is, we have a goodness-of-fit problem. However, it is not possible to calculate probabilities from \(F\), probably because this would require integration in high dimensions. We are, though, able to generate a second data set \(y\) under \(F\), and so can run a twosample test.
It can be shown that if the model \(F\) is not fully specified but includes parameters that have to be estimated from \(x\), finding p values using the permutation method leads to an extremely conservative tests, that is, the true type I error probability is much smaller than the desired one. Instead one can use a parametric bootstrap approach, that is a new data set \(y\) can be generated in each simulation run.
Let’s say we wish to test whether the data set \(x\) comes from a multivariate normal distribution with unknown mean and covariance:
f=function(a) {
x=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(500, c(0.5, 0.5))
y=rbind(matrix(runif(a*1000), ncol=2),
mvtnorm::rmvnorm((1-a)*500, c(0.5,0.5)))
list(x=x, y=y)
}
rnull=function(dta) {
muhat=apply(dta$x, 2, mean)
sigmahat=cor(dta$x)
list(x=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(nrow(dta$x), muhat, sigmahat),
y=mvtnorm::rmvnorm(nrow(dta$y), muhat, sigmahat))
}
dta=f(0) # Null hypothesis is true
twosample_test(dta, rnull=rnull, B=B, maxProcessor = 1)
#> Data is assumed to be continuous
#> $statistics
#> KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5 AZ BF
#> 0.076000 0.116000 0.176700 1.321800 1.064000 2.038000 0.001345 0.293900
#> BG
#> 0.888500
#>
#> $p.values
#> KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5 AZ BF BG
#> 0.245 0.255 0.205 0.170 0.055 0.250 0.170 0.200 0.035
dta=f(0.2) # Null hypothesis is false
twosample_test(dta, rnull=rnull, B=B, maxProcessor = 1)
#> Data is assumed to be continuous
#> $statistics
#> KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5 AZ BF BG
#> 0.12400 0.20000 0.49640 3.25860 1.10000 2.22200 0.01947 0.97180 4.03100
#>
#> $p.values
#> KS K CvM AD NN1 NN5 AZ BF BG
#> 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000
Again we can find adjusted p values:
and find the power of the tests:
Denote by \(\mathbf{z}\) the combined data set \(x_1,..,x_n,y_1,..y_m\). Let \(\hat{F}\) and \(\hat{G}\) be the empirical distribution functions of the two data sets, and let \(\hat{H}\) be the empirical distribution function of \(\mathbf{z}\)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
This classic test uses the test statistic
\[\max\{\vert \hat{F}(z_i)-\hat{G}(z_i)\vert;z_1,..,z_{n+m}\}\]
It was first proposed in (Kolmogorov 1933) and (Smirnov 1939).
Kiuper’s test
A variant of Kolmorogov-Smirnov:
\[\max\{\hat{F}(z_i)-\hat{G}(z_i);z_1,..,z_{n+m}\}-\min\{ \hat{F}(z_i)-\hat{G}(z_i);z_1,..,z_{n+m}\}\] This test was first discussed in (Kuiper 1960).
Cramer-vonMises test
\[\sum_{i=1}^{n+m} \left(\hat{F}(z_i)-\hat{G}(z_i)\right)^2\] the extension to the two-sample problem of the Cramer-vonMises criterion is discussed in (T. W. Anderson 1962).
Anderson-Darling test
\[\sum_{i=1}^{n+m} \frac{\left(\hat{F}(z_i)-\hat{G}(z_i)\right)^2}{\hat{H}(z_i)(1-\hat{H}(z_i))}\] It was first proposed in (Theodore W. Anderson, Darling, et al. 1952).
The test statistics are the average number of nearest neighbors of the \(\mathbf{x}\) data set that are also from \(\mathbf{x}\) plus the average number of nearest neighbors of the \(\mathbf{y}\) data set that are also from \(\mathbf{y}\). NN1 uses one nearest neighbor and \(NN5\) uses 5.
We denote by \(||.||\) Euclidean distance
Aslan-Zech test
This test discussed in (Aslan and and 2005) uses the test statistic
\[ \begin{aligned} &\frac{1}{nm}\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^m \log(||x_i-y_j||) -\\ &\frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{i<j} \log(||x_i-x_j||) - \\ &\frac{1}{m^2}\sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{i<j} \log(||y_i-y_j||) \end{aligned} \] Baringhaus-Franz test
Similar to the Aslan-Zech test, it uses the test statistic
\[ \begin{aligned} &\frac{nm}{n+m}\left[\frac{1}{nm}\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^m \sqrt{||x_i-y_j||} + \right.\\ &\frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{i<j} \sqrt{||x_i-x_j||} -\\ &\left. \frac{1}{m^2}\sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{i<j} \sqrt{||y_i-y_j||} \right]\\ \end{aligned} \] and was first proposed in (Baringhaus and Franz 2004).
Biswas-Ghosh test
Another variation of test based on Euclidean distance was discussed in (Biswas and Ghosh 2014).
\[ \begin{aligned} &B_{xy} = \frac{1}{nm}\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^m \sqrt{||x_i-y_j||} \\ &B_{xx}= \frac{2}{n(n-1)}\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{i<j} \sqrt{||x_i-x_j||} \\ &B_{yy}=\frac{2}{m(m-1)}\sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{i<j} \sqrt{||y_i-y_j||}\\ &\left(B_{xx}-B_{xy}\right)^2+\left(B_{yy}-B_{xy}\right)^2 \end{aligned} \]
Friedman-Rafski test
This test is a multi-dimensional extension of the classic Wald-Wolfowitz test bases on minimum spanning trees. It was discussed in (Friedman and Rafsky 1979).
Simple Nearest Neighboor test
Similar to the nearest neigboor tests described earlier, it uses only the number of nearest neighbors of the first data set that are also from the first data set. This number has a binomial distribution, and this can be used to find p values.
Chen-Friedman tests
These tests, discussed in (Chen and Friedman, n.d.), are implemented in the gTests (Chen and Zhang 2017) package.
Ball Divergence test
A test described in (Pan et al. 2018) and implemented in the R package (Zhu et al. 2021).
Implemented for discrete data are versions of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kuiper, Cramer-vonMises, Anderson-Darling, nearest neighboor, Aslan-Zech, Baringhaus-Franz tests as well as a chisquare test.