-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changed output of an old analysis after version update #7
Comments
Hi, inter.binning(Y = "CAL_CH", D = "TREAT", X = "CAL_PRE", data = datapasq12, weights = NULL, Ylabel = "CAL Gain", Dlabel = "Treatment", Xlabel="CAL pre-test", main="Kernel estimator of Treatment effect") $nbins $est.lin $est.bin $binaryD $Xlabel $Dlabel $Ylabel $de $de.co Call: Data: data[data[, D] == 0, X] (20 obs.); Bandwidth 'bw' = 0.2306
Min. :3.308 Min. :0.0009721 $de.tr Call: Data: data[data[, D] == 1, X] (20 obs.); Bandwidth 'bw' = 0.3689
Min. :2.893 Min. :0.0006081 $hist.out $counts $density $mids $xname $equidist attr(,"class") $count.tr $tests $tests$bin.size $tests$treat.variation.byGroup $tests$X.Lkurtosis $tests$correctOrder $tests$p.twosided $tests$p.wald $graph attr(,"class")
PDN |
It could be due to the change in the bandwidth selection method. We are
using adaptive bandwidth selection as default. Can you try specifying
bw.adaptive
= FALSE
…On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 6:59 AM pdeninis ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi,
I tried recoding TREAT from 1,2 to 0,1.
Now it works, but the ouput is different.
`
datapasq12$TREAT<-TREAT-1
datapasq12 <-
structure(list(TREAT = c(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1), CAL_PRE = c(5, 6, 5.5, 5.5, 6, 5, 5, 5,
5, 6, 5, 6.5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 6, 5, 6, 4, 5, 5, 5,
6, 7, 6, 6, 4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 4, 5), CAL_CH = c(4, 5, 3.5, 3.5,
4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 3, 4.5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4,
3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4)), row.names = c(NA,
-40L), class = "data.frame")
inter.binning(Y = "CAL_CH", D = "TREAT", X = "CAL_PRE", data = datapasq12,
weights = NULL, Ylabel = "CAL Gain", Dlabel = "Treatment", Xlabel="CAL
pre-test", main="Kernel estimator of Treatment effect")
$type
[1] "binning"
$nbins
[1] 3
$est.lin
X.lvls marg lb ub
1 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
2 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
3 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
4 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
5 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
6 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
7 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
8 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
9 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
10 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
11 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
12 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
13 4.000 0.943263880 0.37488208 1.511645685
14 4.070 0.895655517 0.35080495 1.440506081
15 4.460 0.630408925 0.20783199 1.052985862
16 4.850 0.365162333 0.03778373 0.692540932
17 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
18 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
19 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
20 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
21 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
22 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
23 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
24 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
25 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
26 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
27 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
28 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
29 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
30 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
31 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
32 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
33 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
34 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
35 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
36 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
37 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
38 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
39 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
40 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
41 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
42 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
43 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
44 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
45 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
46 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
47 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
48 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
49 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
50 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
51 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
52 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
53 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
54 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
55 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
56 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
57 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
58 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
59 5.000 0.263144413 -0.04050754 0.566796368
60 5.005 0.259743815 -0.04328244 0.562770071
61 5.200 0.127120519 -0.16103383 0.415274869
62 5.395 -0.005502777 -0.29870072 0.287695166
63 5.500 -0.076915321 -0.38088899 0.227058346
64 5.500 -0.076915321 -0.38088899 0.227058346
65 5.500 -0.076915321 -0.38088899 0.227058346
66 5.675 -0.195936228 -0.52862061 0.136748156
67 5.870 -0.328559524 -0.70561347 0.048494422
68 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
69 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
70 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
71 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
72 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
73 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
74 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
75 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
76 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
77 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
78 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
79 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
80 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
81 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
82 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
83 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
84 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
85 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
86 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
87 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
88 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
89 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
90 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
91 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
92 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
93 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
94 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
95 6.000 -0.416975055 -0.82889363 -0.005056479
96 6.025 -0.433978041 -0.85298180 -0.014974286
97 6.220 -0.566601337 -1.04419757 -0.089005107
98 6.415 -0.699224634 -1.23992442 -0.158524847
99 6.610 -0.831847930 -1.43875686 -0.224939001
100 6.805 -0.964471226 -1.63978206 -0.289160392
101 7.000 -1.097094522 -1.84239653 -0.351792513
$est.bin
x0 coef se CI_lower CI_upper
CAL pre-test: [4,5] 5.00 0.30 0.2104143 -0.1291429 0.7291429
CAL pre-test: (5,6] 6.00 -0.75 0.2716437 -1.3040211 -0.1959789
CAL pre-test: (6,7] 6.75 0.50 0.6273344 -0.7794568 1.7794568
$binaryD
[1] TRUE
$Xlabel
[1] "CAL pre-test"
$Dlabel
[1] "Treatment"
$Ylabel
[1] "CAL Gain"
$de
NULL
$de.co
Call:
density.default(x = data[data[, D] == 0, X])
Data: data[data[, D] == 0, X] (20 obs.); Bandwidth 'bw' = 0.2306
x y
Min. :3.308 Min. :0.0009721
1st Qu.:4.279 1st Qu.:0.0871115
Median :5.250 Median :0.2180965
Mean :5.250 Mean :0.2571851
3rd Qu.:6.221 3rd Qu.:0.3420941
Max. :7.192 Max. :0.8822507
$de.tr
Call:
density.default(x = data[data[, D] == 1, X])
Data: data[data[, D] == 1, X] (20 obs.); Bandwidth 'bw' = 0.3689
x y
Min. :2.893 Min. :0.0006081
1st Qu.:4.197 1st Qu.:0.0400754
Median :5.500 Median :0.1669296
Mean :5.500 Mean :0.1915717
3rd Qu.:6.803 3rd Qu.:0.3562400
Max. :8.107 Max. :0.4481561
$hist.out
$breaks
[1] 4.00 4.05 4.10 4.15 4.20 4.25 4.30 4.35 4.40 4.45 4.50 4.55 4.60 4.65
4.70 4.75 4.80 4.85 4.90 4.95 5.00 5.05 5.10 5.15 5.20 5.25 5.30 5.35 5.40
5.45 5.50 5.55 5.60 5.65 5.70 5.75 5.80 5.85
[39] 5.90 5.95 6.00 6.05 6.10 6.15 6.20 6.25 6.30 6.35 6.40 6.45 6.50 6.55
6.60 6.65 6.70 6.75 6.80 6.85 6.90 6.95 7.00
$counts
[1] 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
$density
[1] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
[48] 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
$mids
[1] 4.025 4.075 4.125 4.175 4.225 4.275 4.325 4.375 4.425 4.475 4.525
4.575 4.625 4.675 4.725 4.775 4.825 4.875 4.925 4.975 5.025 5.075 5.125
5.175 5.225 5.275 5.325 5.375 5.425 5.475 5.525
[32] 5.575 5.625 5.675 5.725 5.775 5.825 5.875 5.925 5.975 6.025 6.075
6.125 6.175 6.225 6.275 6.325 6.375 6.425 6.475 6.525 6.575 6.625 6.675
6.725 6.775 6.825 6.875 6.925 6.975
$xname
[1] "data[, X]"
$equidist
[1] TRUE
attr(,"class")
[1] "histogram"
$count.tr
[1] 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
$tests
$tests$est.binning
x0 coef se CI_lower CI_upper
CAL pre-test: [4,5] 5.00 0.30 0.210 -0.129 0.729
CAL pre-test: (5,6] 6.00 -0.75 0.272 -1.304 -0.196
CAL pre-test: (6,7] 6.75 0.50 0.627 -0.779 1.779
$tests$bin.size
[1] "0.600" "0.350" "0.050"
$tests$treat.variation.byGroup
[1] "1.233" "0.808" "2.000"
$tests$X.Lkurtosis
[1] "0.102"
$tests$correctOrder
[1] FALSE
$tests$p.twosided
[1] "0.005" "0.077" "0.764"
$tests$p.wald
[1] "0.385"
$graph
attr(,"class")
[1] "interflex"
`
Is this a new coding of the function? The results are different, too. And
the graph.
The main difference, at least at a first glance, stands in the estimate
and CI's width of one of the bins, the one most far away from the line
prediction. It was about 3, 2.5 to 3.5, while now is 0.5, -0.75 to 1.25
approximately. The new results would seem more correct.
1. Is the new release less tolerant about the indicator variable
coding? What are its requirement?
2. Is the new result the correct one?
Thank you.
PDN
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#7 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB2PKGBR6MV4PGEHMO444I3RLMWVBANCNFSM4MC73PSA>
.
--
Yiqing Xu
Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
Stanford University
http://yiqingxu.org/
|
Hi Yiqing Xu and Ziyi Liu I can not find any reference to the parameter bw.adaptive in the interflex documentation. I have just read the answer by Ziyi Liu. I have seen his graphs on my data, the greater difference being on the third bin which is not present in his. However, it is really much different from the old analysis: I did not intervene to reduce the bins to 2, which seems appropriate to judge by the result, as the last bin could be rather underrepresented. I will follow your news because I'm very interested in the possibility to apply interflex for diagnostics and alternative estimates of logistic regression ! Thanks again! |
Hi, PDN |
Being the first attempt to use it, I thought it right that, as a diagnostic, it was manipulated as little as possible. However, wanting use it routinely, I realize instead that this function should not be thought of as a black box: the adjustment parameters are there precisely to be adapted to the type of data being analyzed. A thorough experimentation of their possibilities is in order! Thanks for showing it so effectively! |
Hi, first of everything thank you for your wonderful package!
Time ago I ran with an older version of R an analysis with this data :
datapasq12 <-
structure(list(TREAT = c(1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,
2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2), CAL_PRE = c(5, 6, 5.5, 5.5, 6, 5, 5, 5,
5, 6, 5, 6.5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 6, 5, 6, 4, 5, 5, 5,
6, 7, 6, 6, 4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 4, 5), CAL_CH = c(4, 5, 3.5, 3.5,
4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 3, 4.5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4,
3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4)), class = "data.frame", row.names = c(NA,
-40L))
and saved these results along with a graph:
inter.binning(Y = "CAL_CH", D = "TREAT", X = "CAL_PRE", data = datapasq12, weights = NULL, Ylabel = "CAL Gain", Dlabel = "Treatment", Xlabel="CAL pre-test", main="Kernel estimator of Treatment effect")
$
est.binning
x0 coef se CI_lower CI_upper
CAL pre-test: [4,5] 5.00 0.30 0.2104 -0.1291 0.7291
CAL pre-test: (5,6] 6.00 -0.75 0.2716 -1.3040 -0.1960
CAL pre-test: (6,7] 6.75 3.50 0.2480 2.9943 4.0057
$binary.treatment
[1] 1
$bin.size
1 2 3
0.60 0.35 0.05
$treat.variation.byGroup
[1] 0.1218 0.1068 0.2222
$X.Lkurtosis
[1] 0.1021
$correctOrder
[1] FALSE
$p.twosided
p.1v2 p.2v3 p.1v3
0.0046 0.0000 0.0000
p values of pairwise t-tests of the binning estimates when there are 2 or 3 bins.
$p.wald
[1] 0.3853
p-value of a Wald test. The NULL hypothesis is that the linear interaction model
and the binning model are statistically equivalent.
$graph
Today I repeated it with R 3.6.1 and I got:
Please, may you tell me what's the issue and if there is a solution?
Thanks for your attention.
PDN
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: