Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:19:50.057Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Algebraic geometry of 2×2 contingency tables

from Part I - Contingency tables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2010

Paolo Gibilisco
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Roma 'Tor Vergata'
Eva Riccomagno
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Genova
Maria Piera Rogantin
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Genova
Henry P. Wynn
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Contingency tables represent the joint distribution of categorical variables. In this chapter we use modern algebraic geometry to update the geometric representation of 2 × 2 contingency tables first explored in (Fienberg 1968) and (Fienberg and Gilbert 1970). Then we use this geometry for a series of new ends including various characterizations of the joint distribution in terms of combinations of margins, conditionals, and odds ratios. We also consider incomplete characterisations of the joint distribution and the link to latent class models and to the phenomenon known as Simpson's paradox. Many of the ideas explored here generalise rather naturally to I × J and higher-way tables. We end with a brief discussion of generalisations and open problems.

Introduction

(Pearson 1956) in his presidential address to the Royal Statistical Society was one of the earliest statistical authors towrite explicitly about the role of geometric thinking for the theory of statistics, although many authors previously, such as (Edgeworth 1914) and (Fisher 1921), had relied heuristically upon geometric characterisations.

For contingency tables, beginning with (Fienberg 1968) and (Fienberg and Gilbert 1970), several authors have exploited the geometric representation of contingency table models, in terms of quantities such as margins and odds ratios, both for the proof of statistical results and to gain deeper understanding of models used for contingency table representation. For example, see (Fienberg 1970) for the convergence of iterative proportional fitting procedure, (Diaconis 1977) for the geometric representation of exchangeability, and (Kenett 1983) for uses in exploratory data analysis.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×