I see.
My guess is that the multiplication itself is trivial. You might take a
pencil and paper to the combinatorics
Binomial(A)- Binomial(B) * Binomial(C) -Binomial(D)
and see if it boils down to something much simpler.
On the other hand, the real problem is possibly just that you are using
an interpreted language to do quite a lot of work.
Nick
[email protected]
Eva Poen
Upon reading my post again, I realised that I was not careful enough
when simplifying the code for the purpose of sending it to the list.
The line involving the binomial:
qui replace current =
Binomial(n1,`xx1',theta)-Binomial(n1,`=`xx1'+1',theta))*(Binomial(n2,`xx
2',theta)-Binomial(n2,`=`xx2'+1',theta))
should have -theta- replaced by -p-. Therefore, -current- and -PH0sum-
are not constant; the binomial product is calculated for all values of
-p-, which are 10001 in my case.
The p-value of the test is the maximum (well, supremum, actually) of
the variable -PH0sum-.
It seems to be the case that the most time-consuming thing inside the
nested loop is this product of binomial probability mass functions. Is
there a way outside Mata to speed this bit up?
2008/2/22, Nick Cox <[email protected]>:
> I don't see that you need hold constants in variables. Use scalars not
> variables to hold constants. This refers to -current- and -PHOsum-.
>
> I have only scanned this quickly, but at first sight it appears that
> your variable -p- is never used elsewhere in the code.
>
> Converting some of this to Mata is perhaps the most obvious speed-up.
Eva Poen
> I am currently trying to implement the unconditional test for
> comparing two binomial proportions by Boschloo. The test is described
> e.g. here: http://www.west.asu.edu/rlberge1/papers/comp2x2.pdf (page
> 3).
>
> The problem with my implementation is that it takes a long time to
> execute: for n1=148 and n2=132, it takes roughly 30 minutes on a
> reasonably modern machine. I am using Stata 9.2 for this. I was
> wondering if anyone could suggest improvements to make it faster.
>
> Here is how the test works:
> Say you have two samples of size n1 and n2. In sample 1, there are x1
> successes whereas in sample 2 there are x2.
> a) compute fisher's exact test for the two proportions and record the
> two-sided p-value.
>
> b) for every possible combination of successes in the two samples
> (which is n1Xn2 combinations):
> b1) compute fisher's exact test
> b2) check whether the p-value is less than or equal to the p-value
> from the original sample in step a).
> b3) if it is <= the result from a), compute the product of the
> binomial probability mass functions for this combination. Do this for
> (a lot) of values for 0 <= p <= 1. If it is > the result from step a)
> , do nothing.
>
> c) The result of step b3) is added up over all n1Xn2 iterations.
>
> d) Search for the maximum of c) over all values of p. This maximum is
> the p-value for this test.
>
> Here is what I do in every step.
> I first create a variable that holds all probability values of p that
> I want to do the calculations for:
> set obs 10001
> qui gen double p = (_n-1)/10001
> The higher the "resolution" of p, the more accurate is the result
going
> to be.
>
> I also create a variable that holds the current calculations, and one
> that holds the (running) sum over all iterations:
> qui gen double PH0sum = 0
> qui gen double current = .
>
> a)
> qui tabi `=n1-x1' `=n2-x2' \ `=x1' `=x2', exact
> scalar fisher = r(p_exact)
>
> b) and c)
> forvalues xx1 = 0/`=n1' {
> forvalues xx2 = 0/`=n2' {
> qui tabi `=n1-`xx1'' `=n2-`xx2'' \ `xx1' `xx2', exact
> scalar fishnew = r(p_exact)
> if fishnew <= fisher {
> qui replace current =
>
Binomial(n1,`xx1',theta)-Binomial(n1,`=`xx1'+1',theta))*(Binomial(n2,`xx
> 2',theta)-Binomial(n2,`=`xx2'+1',theta))
> qui replace PH0sum = PH0sum + current
> }
> }
> }
>
> d)
> qui sum PH0sum
> scalar p_boschloo = r(max)
>
> ********************************************************
>
> I can replicate an example I found in a Biometrics(2003) paper by
> Mehrotra et al., so I believe that the calculations are correct. Is
> there a way to speed things up inside the nested loop? I'd be
greatful
> for any hints, as I have to run quite a lot of these tests; time does
> matter here.
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
