Jump to content

G-test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kastchei (talk | contribs) at 15:12, 29 September 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In statistics, G-tests are likelihood-ratio or maximum likelihood statistical significance tests that are increasingly being used in situations where chi-squared tests were previously recommended.

The commonly used chi-squared tests for goodness of fit to a distribution and for independence in contingency tables are in fact approximations of the log-likelihood ratio on which the G-tests are based. This approximation was developed by Karl Pearson because at the time it was unduly laborious to calculate log-likelihood ratios. With the advent of electronic calculators and personal computers, this is no longer a problem. G-tests are coming into increasing use, particularly since they were recommended in the 1994 edition of the popular statistics textbook by Sokal and Rohlf.[1] Dunning introduced the test to the computational linguistics community where it is now widely used.

The general formula for Pearson's chi-squared test statistic is

where Oi is the frequency observed in a cell, E is the frequency expected on the null hypothesis, and the sum is taken across all cells. The corresponding general formula for G is

where ln denotes the natural logarithm (log to the base e) and the sum is again taken over all non-empty cells.

Relation to mutual information

The value of G can also be expressed in terms of mutual information.

Let

, , and

Then G can be expressed in several alternative forms:

where the entropy of a discrete random variable is defined as

and where

is the mutual information between the row vector and the column vector of the contingency table.

It can also be shown[citation needed] that the inverse document frequency weighting commonly used for text retrieval is an approximation of G applicable when the row sum for the query is much smaller than the row sum for the remainder of the corpus. Similarly, the result of Bayesian inference applied to a choice of single multinomial distribution for all rows of the contingency table taken together versus the more general alternative of a separate multinomial per row produces results very similar to the G statistic.[citation needed]

Distribution and usage

Given the null hypothesis that the observed frequencies result from random sampling from a distribution with the given expected frequencies, the distribution of G is approximately a chi-squared distribution, with the same number of degrees of freedom as in the corresponding chi-squared test.

For samples of a reasonable size, the G-test and the chi-squared test will lead to the same conclusions. However, the approximation to the theoretical chi-squared distribution for the G-test is better than for the Pearson chi-squared tests in cases where for any cell , and in any such case the G-test should always be used.[citation needed]

For very small samples the multinomial test for goodness of fit, and Fisher's exact test for contingency tables, or even Bayesian hypothesis selection are preferable to either the chi-squared test or the G-test.[citation needed]

Statistical software

  • Software for the R programming language (homepage here) to perform the G-test is available on a Professor's software page at the University of Alberta.
  • Fisher's G-Test in the GeneCycle Package of the R programming language (fisher.g.test) does not implement the G-test as described in this article, but rather Fisher's exact test of Gaussian white-noise in a time series (see Fisher, R.A. 1929 "Tests of significance in harmonic analysis").
  • In SAS, one can conduct G-Test by applying the /chisq option in proc freq.[2]

References

  1. ^ Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. (1994). Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research., 3rd edition. New York: Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-2411-1.
  2. ^ G-Test in Handbook of Biological Statistics, University of Delaware.
  • Dunning, Ted (1993). Accurate Methods for the Statistics of Surprise and Coincidence., Computational Linguistics, Volume 19, issue 1 (March, 1993).