Skip to main content

Probability and Cumulative Dice Sums

Post a Comment

More Measles: Vaccination Rates and School Funding

I took a look at California's personal belief exemption rate (PBE) for kindergarten vaccinations in Part I. California also provides poverty information for public schools through the Free or Reduced Price Meals data sets, both of which conveniently include California's school codes. Cleaned versions of these data sets and my R code are in my vaccination GitHub.

We can use the school code as a key to join these two data sets. But remember, the FRPM data set only includes data about public schools, so we'll have to retain the private school data for PBEs by doing what's called a left outer join. This still performs a join on the school code key, but if any school codes included in the left data don't have corresponding entries in the right data set we still retain them. The missing values for the right data set in this case are set to NULL.

We can perform a left outer join in R by using "merge" with the option "all.x=TRUE". I'll start by looking at how the PBE rate varies between charter, non-charter public and private schools, so we'll need to replace those missing values for funding source after our join. If the funding source is missing, it's a private school. The FRPM data also denotes non-charter public schools with funding type "", so I'll replace those with "aPublic" for convenience. For factors, R will by default set the reference level to be the level that comes first alphabetically.


Here's a subset of the output. The addition of the funding source is an improvement over the model that doesn't include it, and the estimates for the odds ratios for funding source is the highest for directly funded charter schools, followed by locally funded charter schools and private schools. Remember, public schools are the reference level, so for the public level \(\log(\text{odds ratio}) = 0\). Everything else being equal, our odds ratio estimates based on funding source would be: \begin{align*}
\mathrm{OR}_{\text{public}} &= e^{-3.820}\times e^{0} &= 0.022\\
\mathrm{OR}_{\text{private}} &= e^{-3.820}\times e^{0.752} &= 0.047\\
\mathrm{OR}_{\text{charter-local}} &= e^{-3.820}\times e^{1.049} &= 0.063\\
\mathrm{OR}_{\text{charter-direct}} &= e^{-3.820}\times e^{1.348} &= 0.085
\end{align*}
Converting to estimated PBE rates, we get: \begin{align*}
\mathrm{PBE}_{\text{public}} &= \frac{0.022}{1+0.022} &= 0.022\\
\mathrm{PBE}_{\text{private}} &= \frac{0.047}{1+0.047} &= 0.045\\
\mathrm{PBE}_{\text{charter-local}} &= \frac{0.063}{1+0.063} &= 0.059\\
\mathrm{PBE}_{\text{charter-direct}} &= \frac{0.085}{1+0.085} &= 0.078
\end{align*}

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Simplified Multinomial Kelly

Here's a simplified version for optimal Kelly bets when you have multiple outcomes (e.g. horse races). The Smoczynski & Tomkins algorithm, which is explained here (or in the original paper): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion#Multiple_horses Let's say there's a wager that, for every $1 you bet, will return a profit of $b if you win. Let the probability of winning be \(p\), and losing be \(q=1-p\). The original Kelly criterion says to wager only if \(b\cdot p-q > 0\) (the expected value is positive), and in this case to wager a fraction \( \frac{b\cdot p-q}{b} \) of your bankroll. But in a horse race, how do you decide which set of outcomes are favorable to bet on? It's tricky, because these wagers are mutually exclusive i.e. you can win at most one. It turns out there's a simple and intuitive method to find which bets are favorable: 1) Look at \( b\cdot p-q\) for every horse. 2) Pick any horse for which \( b\cdot p-q > 0\) and mar...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mixed Models in R - Bigger, Faster, Stronger

When you start doing more advanced sports analytics you'll eventually starting working with what are known as hierarchical, nested or mixed effects models . These are models that contain both fixed and random effects . There are multiple ways of defining fixed vs random random effects , but one way I find particularly useful is that random effects are being "predicted" rather than "estimated", and this in turn involves some "shrinkage" towards the mean. Here's some R code for NCAA ice hockey power rankings using a nested Poisson model (which can be found in my hockey GitHub repository ): model The fixed effects are year , field (home/away/neutral), d_div (NCAA division of the defense), o_div (NCAA division of the offense) and game_length (number of overtime periods); offense (strength of offense), defense (strength of defense) and game_id are all random effects. The reason for modeling team offenses and defenses as random vs fixed effec...
3 comments
Read more

A Bayes' Solution to Monty Hall

For any problem involving conditional probabilities one of your greatest allies is Bayes' Theorem . Bayes' Theorem says that for two events A and B, the probability of A given B is related to the probability of B given A in a specific way. Standard notation: probability of A given B is written \( \Pr(A \mid B) \) probability of B is written \( \Pr(B) \) Bayes' Theorem: Using the notation above, Bayes' Theorem can be written:  \[ \Pr(A \mid B) = \frac{\Pr(B \mid A)\times \Pr(A)}{\Pr(B)} \] Let's apply Bayes' Theorem to the Monty Hall problem . If you recall, we're told that behind three doors there are two goats and one car, all randomly placed. We initially choose a door, and then Monty, who knows what's behind the doors, always shows us a goat behind one of the remaining doors. He can always do this as there are two goats; if we chose the car initially, Monty picks one of the two doors with a goat behind it at random. Assume we pick Door 1 an...
20 comments
Read more