FACTORY ACCIDENT
Applied Statistics Assignment 2
Himalini Aklecha (1032670), Suraj Iyer (0866094), Pradyumna Majumder (1036151)
Problem Statement
There has been a release of
toxic substances at a
factory. The leak has been
measured with 2 sensors
across 7 different sites for
up to 4 hours and once from
an hour before the accident.
. performed the Hampels test per sample. Here in the
Our main goal is to answer the following questions:
1. Are the measured PPM values at the
different sites worse than normal level?
2. If so, which sites are really affected.
The normal PPM levels are given by the Before
site. So to determine if the PPM values from other
sites are worse than normal, we compared each
measurement made per hour after the accident with
the hour from before the accident. If most hours of a
given site appears worse, then we can say the site
is generally affected.
Overall Structure
The general order in which we proceeded to
analyse the data is as follows.
Basic Normality test
We first generated the Normal probability plots
(Graphical test) for each sample and checked if the
data points are aligned to the estimated normal
regression line.
Outlier detection
Tukeys test:
This test, tests for outliers by looking for data
points that are far out above and below the 75%
and 25% quartiles respectively. In the above
example the Outlier = 1 means it is an outlier.
Poster template by ResearchPosters.co.za
Group 1
Technical University of Eindhoven
Hampels test:
The Hampels test, tests for outliers based on the
deviation of each observation from the median. We
above example the Z value is greater than 3.5 hence it
is an outlier. We use the result of Hampels for the rest
of our analysis because it detects better and more
outliers than Tukeys.
Advanced Normality tests
Most of the samples appeared to have outliers. So we
performed the rest of the tests by removing the
outliers. The above example represents a set of
thorough normality tests we performed on each
sample. If the p-value of any of the tests is >=0.05,
then the sample could be normal. But this gives rise to
the issue where some tests may accept normality
while others reject it. To avoid this issue, we prioritise
the result of each test by its strength and the
consensus on the result can be drawn effectively from
this order. The order is: Shapiro-Wilk >
Anderson-Darling > Cramer-von Mises
Kolmogorov-Smirnov. In the above example, all the
tests accept normality, hence the sample is normal.
The result of this test allows to decide whether to use
parametric or non-parametric distribution free tests for
comparing each sample against the Before site.
Advanced Normality tests for LOG PPM
Normality test on PPM values revealed that the
Before site itself was not normal. Consequently, to
test for location and variance, we had to use
non-parametric tests (K-S, Wilcoxon & Levene) but in
the case where the sample meets all the
requirements, a two-sample t-test is much more
sensitive and thus effective. So we took the log of the
PPM values and retested for normality. We found that
the Before site (above example) as well as a few
other sites were log-normal which was sufficient to
compare them with t-test.
K-S test
K-S test tests the null hypothesis that the underlying
distribution of two given samples are the same. The
above example is for comparing Site=Before Hour=-1
and Site=2 Hour=4. The p-value=0.4721 of the
two-sided test is > =0.05. Therefore, they follow the
same distribution. One interesting thing to note here is
than the one sided p-value D+ > D- which means that
the PPM values of Site=2 at Hour=4 is less than
before the accident.
Levenes test
Levenes test is a
non-parametric test for
variances. The null
hypothesis assumes
the variance of the
two samples to be equal. The above figure is a table of
Site-Hour samples which have same variance as the
Before site because their p-values are clearly >
=0.05. The rest of the samples have different spread.
Wilcoxon rank sum test
The K-S test is sensitive to any difference in the
underlying distributions of the two samples.
Substantial difference in shape, spread or median
results in small p-value. Therefore we applied the
Wilcoxon rank sum test to detect the actual location
shift. It tests equality of medians of two given samples.
We found only two samples (above table) have the
same median as the Before site. One important thing
to note is that this test has strong assumption that the
two input samples have equal variance but we can
clearly see that the samples in the tables above also
have equal variance from the Levenes test results
above.
t-test
>
The t-test was performed on those samples which we
found to have log-normal distribution which includes the
Before site. T-test tests equality of means of the two
given samples and assumes equality of variance which
it automatically checks with a F-test. All of the 6
samples we tested, have unequal variance with the
Before site. As such, the results of the t-test cannot be
trusted and so we fall back to the results of the
non-parametric tests for these samples. In the above
example for Site=5 Hour=1, the p-value (Pr > F) rejects
variance homogeneity. Furthermore in the case of
unequal variances, the p-value (Pr > |t|) rejects equality
of means. Both can also be clearly seen from the shape
(spread) and the difference in the position of the center
of the curves.
Conclusion
Are the measured PPM values at the different sites
worse than normal level?
Yes for all sites except Site 2. Because in the
Wilcoxon test, we can see that the null hypothesis for
one-sided is also rejected where two-sided is rejected
implying that the median of the PPM values has
increased. Also, in cases where the Wilcoxon test
does not work, the EDF plot from the K-S test showed
an increase in PPM values relative to the Before site
except for Site 2.
If so, which sites are really affected?
Based on various test results, all sites except Site 2
seem to be seriously affected by the accident.