[SciPy-User] Fisher exact test, anyone?
Ralf Gommers
ralf.gommers@googlemail....
Wed Nov 17 07:24:24 CST 2010
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:38 AM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Ralf Gommers
> <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Bruce Southey <bsouthey@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/16/2010 07:04 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Bruce Southey <bsouthey@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:50 PM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/ticket/956 and
> >>> > http://pypi.python.org/pypi/fisher/ have Fisher's exact
> >>> > testimplementations.
> >>> >
> >>> > It would be nice to get a version in for 0.9. I spent a few
> >>> > unsuccessful days on it earlier this year. But since there are two
> new
> >>> > or corrected versions available, it looks like it just needs testing
> >>> > and a performance comparison.
> >>> >
> >>> > I won't have time for this, so if anyone volunteers for this, scipy
> >>> > 0.9 should be able to get Fisher's exact.
> >>>
> >> https://github.com/rgommers/scipy/tree/fisher-exact
> >> All tests pass. There's only one usable version (see below) so I didn't
> do
> >> performance comparison. I'll leave a note on #956 as well, saying we're
> >> discussing on-list.
> >>
> >>> I briefly looked at the code at pypi link but I do not think it is
> >>> good enough for scipy. Also, I do not like when people license code as
> >>> 'BSD' and there is a comment in cfisher.pyx '# some of this code is
> >>> originally from the internet. (thanks)'. Consequently we can not use
> >>> that code.
> >>
> >> I agree, that's not usable. The plain Python algorithm is also fast
> enough
> >> that there's no need to bother with Cython.
> >>>
> >>> The code with ticket 956 still needs work especially in terms of the
> >>> input types and probably the API (like having a function that allows
> >>> the user to select either 1 or 2 tailed tests).
> >>
> >> Can you explain what you mean by work on input types? I used np.asarray
> >> and forced dtype to be int64. For the 1-tailed test, is it necessary? I
> note
> >> that pearsonr and spearmanr also only do 2-tailed.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Ralf
> >>
> >> I have no problem including this if we can agree on the API because
> >> everything else is internal that can be fixed by release date. So I
> would
> >> accept a place holder API that enable a user in the future to select
> which
> >> tail(s) is performed.
> >
> > It is always possible to add a keyword "tail" later that defaults to
> > 2-tailed. As long as the behavior doesn't change this is perfectly fine,
> and
> > better than having a placeholder.
> >>
> >> 1) It just can not use np.asarray() without checking the input first.
> This
> >> is particularly bad for masked arrays.
> >>
> > Don't understand this. The input array is not returned, only used
> > internally. And I can't think of doing anything reasonable with a 2x2
> table
> > with masked values. If that's possible at all, it should probably just go
> > into mstats.
> >
> >>
> >> 2) There are no dimension checking because, as I understand it, this can
> >> only handle a '2 by 2' table. I do not know enough for general 'r by c'
> >> tables or the 1-d case either.
> >>
> > Don't know how easy it would be to add larger tables. I can add dimension
> > checking with an informative error message.
>
> There is some discussion in the ticket about more than 2by2,
> additions would be nice (and there are some examples on the matlab
> fileexchange), but 2by2 is the most common case and has an unambiguous
> definition.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> 3) The odds-ratio should be removed because it is not part of the test.
> It
> >> is actually more general than this test.
> >>
> > Don't feel strongly about this either way. It comes almost for free, and
> R
> > seems to do the same.
>
> same here, it's kind of traditional to return two things, but in this
> case the odds ratio is not the test statistic, but I don't see that it
> hurts either
>
> >
> >> 4) Variable names such as min and max should not shadow Python
> functions.
> >
> > Yes, Josef noted this already, will change.
> >>
> >> 5) Is there a reference to the algorithm implemented? For example, SPSS
> >> provides a simple 2 by 2 algorithm:
> >>
> >>
> http://support.spss.com/ProductsExt/SPSS/Documentation/Statistics/algorithms/14.0/app05_sig_fisher_exact_test.pdf
> >
> > Not supplied, will ask on the ticket and include it.
>
> I thought, I saw it somewhere, but don't find the reference anymore,
> some kind of bisection algorithm, but having a reference would be
> good.
> Whatever the algorithm is, it's fast, even for larger values.
>
> >>
> >> 6) Why exactly does the dtype need to int64? That is, is there something
> >> wrong with hypergeom function? I just want to understand why the
> precision
> >> change is required because the input should enter with sufficient
> precision.
> >>
> > This test:
> > fisher_exact(np.array([[18000, 80000], [20000, 90000]]))
> > becomes much slower and gives an overflow warning with int32. int32 is
> just
> > not enough. This is just an implementation detail and does not in any way
> > limit the accepted inputs, so I don't see a problem here.
>
> for large numbers like this the chisquare test should give almost the
> same results, it looks pretty "asymptotic" to me. (the usual
> recommendation for the chisquare is more than 5 expected observations
> in each cell)
> I think the precision is required for some edge cases when
> probabilities get very small. The main failing case, I was fighting
> with for several days last winter, and didn't manage to fix had a zero
> at the first position. I didn't think about increasing the precision.
>
> >
> > Don't know what the behavior should be if a user passes in floats though?
> > Just convert to int like now, or raise a warning?
>
> I wouldn't do any type checking, and checking that floats are almost
> integers doesn't sound really necessary either, unless or until users
> complain. The standard usage should be pretty clear for contingency
> tables with count data.
>
> Josef
>
>
Thanks for checking.
https://github.com/rgommers/scipy/commit/b968ba17should fix remaining
things. Will wait for a few days to see if we get a
reference to the algorithm. Then will commit.
Cheers,
Ralf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-user/attachments/20101117/b1d34d40/attachment.html
More information about the SciPy-User
mailing list