A comparison of the alr and ilr transformations for kernel density estimation of compositional data

In a seminal paper, Aitchison and Lauder (1985) introduced classical kernel density estimation techniques in the context of compositional data analysis. Indeed, they gave two options for the choice of the kernel to be used in the kernel estimator. One of these kernels is based on the use the alr transformation on the simplex SD jointly with the normal distribution on RD-1. However, these authors themselves recognized that this method has some deficiencies. A method for overcoming these dificulties based on recent developments for compositional data analysis and multivariate kernel estimation theory, combining the ilr transformation with the use of the normal density with a full bandwidth matrix, was recently proposed in Martín-Fernández, Chacón and Mateu- Figueras (2006). Here we present an extensive simulation study that compares both methods in practice, thus exploring the finite-sample behaviour of both estimators

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

Incongruence between test statistics and P values in medical papers

Given an observed test statistic and its degrees of freedom, one may compute the observed P value with most statistical packages. It is unknown to what extent test statistics and P values are congruent in published medical papers. Methods: We checked the congruence of statistical results reported in all the papers of volumes 409–412 of Nature (2001) and a random sample of 63 results from volumes 322–323 of BMJ (2001). We also tested whether the frequencies of the last digit of a sample of 610 test statistics deviated from a uniform distribution (i.e., equally probable digits).Results: 11.6% (21 of 181) and 11.1% (7 of 63) of the statistical results published in Nature and BMJ respectively during 2001 were incongruent, probably mostly due to rounding, transcription, or type-setting errors. At least one such error appeared in 38% and 25% of the papers of Nature and BMJ, respectively. In 12% of the cases, the significance level might change one or more orders of magnitude. The frequencies of the last digit of statistics deviated from the uniform distribution and suggested digit preference in rounding and reporting.Conclusions: this incongruence of test statistics and P values is another example that statistical practice is generally poor, even in the most renowned scientific journals, and that quality of papers should be more controlled and valued