Conditional compositional biplots: theory and application

The biplot has proved to be a powerful descriptive and analytical tool in many areas of applications of statistics. For compositional data the necessary theoretical adaptation has been provided, with illustrative applications, by Aitchison (1990) and Aitchison and Greenacre (2002). These papers were restricted to the interpretation of simple compositional data sets. In many situations the problem has to be described in some form of conditional modelling. For example, in a clinical trial where interest is in how patients’ steroid metabolite compositions may change as a result of different treatment regimes, interest is in relating the compositions after treatment to the compositions before treatment and the nature of the treatments applied. To study this through a biplot technique requires the development of some form of conditional compositional biplot. This is the purpose of this paper. We choose as a motivating application an analysis of the 1992 US President ial Election, where interest may be in how the three-part composition, the percentage division among the three candidates - Bush, Clinton and Perot - of the presidential vote in each state, depends on the ethnic composition and on the urban-rural composition of the state. The methodology of conditional compositional biplots is first developed and a detailed interpretation of the 1992 US Presidential Election provided. We use a second application involving the conditional variability of tektite mineral compositions with respect to major oxide compositions to demonstrate some hazards of simplistic interpretation of biplots. Finally we conjecture on further possible applications of conditional compositional biplots

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

A new distribution on the simplex containing the Dirichlet family

The Dirichlet family owes its privileged status within simplex distributions to easyness of interpretation and good mathematical properties. In particular, we recall fundamental properties for the analysis of compositional data such as closure under amalgamation and subcomposition. From a probabilistic point of view, it is characterised (uniquely) by a variety of independence relationships which makes it indisputably the reference model for expressing the non trivial idea of substantial independence for compositions. Indeed, its well known inadequacy as a general model for compositional data stems from such an independence structure together with the poorness of its parametrisation. In this paper a new class of distributions (called Flexible Dirichlet) capable of handling various dependence structures and containing the Dirichlet as a special case is presented. The new model exhibits a considerably richer parametrisation which, for example, allows to model the means and (part of) the variance-covariance matrix separately. Moreover, such a model preserves some good mathematical properties of the Dirichlet, i.e. closure under amalgamation and subcomposition with new parameters simply related to the parent composition parameters. Furthermore, the joint and conditional distributions of subcompositions and relative totals can be expressed as simple mixtures of two Flexible Dirichlet distributions. The basis generating the Flexible Dirichlet, though keeping compositional invariance, shows a dependence structure which allows various forms of partitional dependence to be contemplated by the model (e.g. non-neutrality, subcompositional dependence and subcompositional non-invariance), independence cases being identified by suitable parameter configurations. In particular, within this model substantial independence among subsets of components of the composition naturally occurs when the subsets have a Dirichlet distribution