Chapter 11 - God Spiked the Integers

This chapter described some of the most common generalized linear models, those used to model counts. It is important to never convert counts to proportions before analysis, because doing so destroys information about sample size. A fundamental difficulty with these models is that parameters are on a different scale, typically log-odds (for binomial) or log-rate (for Poisson), than the outcome variable they describe. Therefore computing implied predictions is even more important than before.

Place each answer inside the code chunk (grey box). The code chunks should contain a text response or a code that completes/answers the question or activity requested. Make sure to include plots if the question requests them.

Finally, upon completion, name your final output .html file as: YourName_ANLY505-Year-Semester.html and publish the assignment to your R Pubs account and submit the link to Canvas. Each question is worth 5 points.

Questions

11-1. As explained in the chapter, binomial data can be organized in aggregated and disaggregated forms, without any impact on inference. But the likelihood of the data does change when the data are converted between the two formats. Can you explain why?

# The likelihood are different in the aggregated and disaggregated forms. The c(n,m) multiplier will be converted to to a constant at the log scale when converting from aggregated format to disaggregated format.

11-2. Use quap to construct a quadratic approximate posterior distribution for the chimpanzee model that includes a unique intercept for each actor, m11.4 (page 330). Plot and compare the quadratic approximation to the posterior distribution produced instead from MCMC. Can you explain both the differences and the similarities between the approximate and the MCMC distributions? Relax the prior on the actor intercepts to Normal(0,10). Re-estimate the posterior using both ulam and quap. Plot and compare the posterior distributions. Do the differences increase or decrease? Why?

data("chimpanzees")
d <- chimpanzees
d$recipient <- NULL

# map
q2 <- map(alist(
  pulled_left ~ dbinom( 1, p),
  logit(p) <- a[actor] + (bp + bpC*condition)*prosoc_left ,
  a[actor] ~ dnorm(0,10),
  bp ~ dnorm(0,10),
  bpC ~ dnorm(0,10)
) ,
data=d)
pairs(q2)

11-3. Revisit the data(Kline) islands example. This time drop Hawaii from the sample and refit the models. What changes do you observe?

data(Kline)
d <- Kline
d$P <- scale( log(d$population) )
d$contact_id <- ifelse( d$contact=="high", 2, 1)

11-4. Use WAIC or PSIS to compare the chimpanzee model that includes a unique intercept for each actor, m11.4 (page 330), to the simpler models fit in the same section. Interpret the results.

data("chimpanzees")

d <- chimpanzees

m11.1 <- map(
  alist(
    pulled_left ~ dbinom(1, p),
    logit(p) <- a ,
    a ~ dnorm(0,10)
  ),
  data=d )

m11.2 <- map(
  alist(
    pulled_left ~ dbinom(1, p) ,
    logit(p) <- a + bp*prosoc_left ,
    a ~ dnorm(0,10) ,
    bp ~ dnorm(0,10)
  ),
  data=d )

m11.3 <- map(
  alist(
    pulled_left ~ dbinom(1, p) ,
    logit(p) <- a + (bp + bpC*condition)*prosoc_left ,
    a ~ dnorm(0,10) ,
    bp ~ dnorm(0,10) ,
    bpC ~ dnorm(0,10)
  ), data=d )

m11.4 <- map(
  alist(
    pulled_left ~ dbinom(1, p),
    logit(p) <- a[actor] + (bp + bpC*condition)*prosoc_left,
    a[actor] ~ dnorm(0, 10),
    bp ~ dnorm(0, 10),
    bpC ~ dnorm(0, 10)
  ),
  data = d)

compare(m11.1,m11.2,m11.3,m11.4)
##           WAIC        SE    dWAIC      dSE     pWAIC       weight
## m11.4 550.6711 18.574940   0.0000       NA 15.571955 1.000000e+00
## m11.2 680.5753  9.184489 129.9042 17.97265  2.036584 6.189500e-29
## m11.3 682.6397  9.423065 131.9687 17.95699  3.149184 2.204807e-29
## m11.1 688.0671  7.065391 137.3960 18.83364  1.063031 1.461635e-30

11-5. The data contained in data(salamanders) are counts of salamanders (Plethodon elongatus) from 47 different 49-m2 plots in northern California.181 The column SALAMAN is the count in each plot, and the columns PCTCOVER and FORESTAGE are percent of ground cover and age of trees in the plot, respectively. You will model SALAMAN as a Poisson variable. (a) Model the relationship between density and percent cover, using a log-link (same as the example in the book and lecture). Use weakly informative priors of your choosing. Check the quadratic approximation again, by comparing quap to ulam. Then plot the expected counts and their 89% interval against percent cover. In which ways does the model do a good job? A bad job? (b) Can you improve the model by using the other predictor, FORESTAGE? Try any models you think useful. Can you explain why FORESTAGE helps or does not help with prediction?