A tale of two logits, compositional data analysis and zero observations

The application of compositional data analysis through log ratio trans- formations corresponds to a multinomial logit model for the shares themselves. This model is characterized by the property of Independence of Irrelevant Alter- natives (IIA). IIA states that the odds ratio in this case the ratio of shares is invariant to the addition or deletion of outcomes to the problem. It is exactly this invariance of the ratio that underlies the commonly used zero replacement procedure in compositional data analysis. In this paper we investigate using the nested logit model that does not embody IIA and an associated zero replacement procedure and compare its performance with that of the more usual approach of using the multinomial logit model. Our comparisons exploit a data set that com- bines voting data by electoral division with corresponding census data for each division for the 2001 Federal election in Australia

Modelling structural zeros in compositional data

This analysis was stimulated by the real data analysis problem of household expenditure data. The full dataset contains expenditure data for a sample of 1224 households. The expenditure is broken down at 2 hierarchical levels: 9 major levels (e.g. housing, food, utilities etc.) and 92 minor levels. There are also 5 factors and 5 covariates at the household level. Not surprisingly, there are a small number of zeros at the major level, but many zeros at the minor level. The question is how best to model the zeros. Clearly, models that try to add a small amount to the zero terms are not appropriate in general as at least some of the zeros are clearly structural, e.g. alcohol/tobacco for households that are teetotal. The key question then is how to build suitable conditional models. For example, is the sub-composition of spending excluding alcohol/tobacco similar for teetotal and non-teetotal households? In other words, we are looking for sub-compositional independence. Also, what determines whether a household is teetotal? Can we assume that it is independent of the composition? In general, whether teetotal will clearly depend on the household level variables, so we need to be able to model this dependence. The other tricky question is that with zeros on more than one component, we need to be able to model dependence and independence of zeros on the different components. Lastly, while some zeros are structural, others may not be, for example, for expenditure on durables, it may be chance as to whether a particular household spends money on durables within the sample period. This would clearly be distinguishable if we had longitudinal data, but may still be distinguishable by looking at the distribution, on the assumption that random zeros will usually be for situations where any non-zero expenditure is not small. While this analysis is based on around economic data, the ideas carry over to many other situations, including geological data, where minerals may be missing for structural reasons (similar to alcohol), or missing because they occur only in random regions which may be missed in a sample (similar to the durables)

Intrinsic test of independence in contingency tables

A condition needed for testing nested hypotheses from a Bayesian viewpoint is that the prior for the alternative model concentrates mass around the small, or null, model. For testing independence in contingency tables, the intrinsic priors satisfy this requirement. Further, the degree of concentration of the priors is controlled by a discrete parameter m, the training sample size, which plays an important role in the resulting answer regardless of the sample size. In this paper we study robustness of the tests of independence in contingency tables with respect to the intrinsic priors with different degree of concentration around the null, and compare with other “robust” results by Good and Crook. Consistency of the intrinsic Bayesian tests is established. We also discuss conditioning issues and sampling schemes, and argue that conditioning should be on either one margin or the table total, but not on both margins. Examples using real are simulated data are given