Reproducing t-test in R gives different result than built-in function





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}






up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1












I'm trying to reproduce how a t-test works using the example from page 211 in The Art Of Computer System Performance Analysis by Raj Jain.



The calculation is as follows:



# system A sample and statistics
a <- c(5.36, 16.57, 0.62, 1.41, 0.64, 7.26)
x_a <- mean(a)
s2_a <- var(a)
n_a <- length(a)

# system B sample and statistics
b <- c(19.12, 3.52, 3.38, 2.5, 3.6, 1.74)
x_b <- mean(b)
s2_b <- var(b)
n_b <- length(b)

# computation of t-test
s <- (s2_a/n_a + s2_b/n_b)^(1/2)
v <- ((s2_a/n_a + s2_b/n_b)^2)/((1/(n_a - 1))*((s2_a/n_a)^2) + (1/(n_b - 1))*((s2_b/n_b)^2)) - 2

# 90% confidence interval
(x_a - x_b) + c(1, -1) * qt(c(0.95), v) * s


The output of the last computation is (6.55, -7.22) which matches the result given in the book (see erratas here: https://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/books/ftp/errors_all.pdf).



However, the built-in t-test gives a different result:



> t.test(a, b, conf.level = 0.9)

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: a and b
t = -0.09015, df = 9.9434, p-value = 0.93
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
90 percent confidence interval:
-7.038828 6.372161
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
5.310000 5.643333


The built-in function gives a confidence interval of (-7.04, 6.37). I'm unable to reproduce this interval. What is the cause of the difference? Is my calculation wrong?



Update: The different result is due to a different value for $v$, indicating the degrees of freedom. As, Ben Bolker points out, R uses 9.94 whereas the manual calculation in the book uses $9.94 - 2 = 7.94$ from it. The book does not say why it subtracts 2. It only assumes that the observations are independent and unpaired but is silent about the variance.



The answer by Neeraj reproduces the calculation of the degrees of freedom that is given in the Wikipedia article to the Welch's t-test.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    Haven't dug into the calculations, but R gives df=9.94 whereas your manual calculation gives df=7.94. deparse(body(stats:::t.test.default))[73:77] will show you R's internal df calculations ...
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday



















up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1












I'm trying to reproduce how a t-test works using the example from page 211 in The Art Of Computer System Performance Analysis by Raj Jain.



The calculation is as follows:



# system A sample and statistics
a <- c(5.36, 16.57, 0.62, 1.41, 0.64, 7.26)
x_a <- mean(a)
s2_a <- var(a)
n_a <- length(a)

# system B sample and statistics
b <- c(19.12, 3.52, 3.38, 2.5, 3.6, 1.74)
x_b <- mean(b)
s2_b <- var(b)
n_b <- length(b)

# computation of t-test
s <- (s2_a/n_a + s2_b/n_b)^(1/2)
v <- ((s2_a/n_a + s2_b/n_b)^2)/((1/(n_a - 1))*((s2_a/n_a)^2) + (1/(n_b - 1))*((s2_b/n_b)^2)) - 2

# 90% confidence interval
(x_a - x_b) + c(1, -1) * qt(c(0.95), v) * s


The output of the last computation is (6.55, -7.22) which matches the result given in the book (see erratas here: https://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/books/ftp/errors_all.pdf).



However, the built-in t-test gives a different result:



> t.test(a, b, conf.level = 0.9)

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: a and b
t = -0.09015, df = 9.9434, p-value = 0.93
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
90 percent confidence interval:
-7.038828 6.372161
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
5.310000 5.643333


The built-in function gives a confidence interval of (-7.04, 6.37). I'm unable to reproduce this interval. What is the cause of the difference? Is my calculation wrong?



Update: The different result is due to a different value for $v$, indicating the degrees of freedom. As, Ben Bolker points out, R uses 9.94 whereas the manual calculation in the book uses $9.94 - 2 = 7.94$ from it. The book does not say why it subtracts 2. It only assumes that the observations are independent and unpaired but is silent about the variance.



The answer by Neeraj reproduces the calculation of the degrees of freedom that is given in the Wikipedia article to the Welch's t-test.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    Haven't dug into the calculations, but R gives df=9.94 whereas your manual calculation gives df=7.94. deparse(body(stats:::t.test.default))[73:77] will show you R's internal df calculations ...
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday















up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1






1





I'm trying to reproduce how a t-test works using the example from page 211 in The Art Of Computer System Performance Analysis by Raj Jain.



The calculation is as follows:



# system A sample and statistics
a <- c(5.36, 16.57, 0.62, 1.41, 0.64, 7.26)
x_a <- mean(a)
s2_a <- var(a)
n_a <- length(a)

# system B sample and statistics
b <- c(19.12, 3.52, 3.38, 2.5, 3.6, 1.74)
x_b <- mean(b)
s2_b <- var(b)
n_b <- length(b)

# computation of t-test
s <- (s2_a/n_a + s2_b/n_b)^(1/2)
v <- ((s2_a/n_a + s2_b/n_b)^2)/((1/(n_a - 1))*((s2_a/n_a)^2) + (1/(n_b - 1))*((s2_b/n_b)^2)) - 2

# 90% confidence interval
(x_a - x_b) + c(1, -1) * qt(c(0.95), v) * s


The output of the last computation is (6.55, -7.22) which matches the result given in the book (see erratas here: https://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/books/ftp/errors_all.pdf).



However, the built-in t-test gives a different result:



> t.test(a, b, conf.level = 0.9)

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: a and b
t = -0.09015, df = 9.9434, p-value = 0.93
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
90 percent confidence interval:
-7.038828 6.372161
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
5.310000 5.643333


The built-in function gives a confidence interval of (-7.04, 6.37). I'm unable to reproduce this interval. What is the cause of the difference? Is my calculation wrong?



Update: The different result is due to a different value for $v$, indicating the degrees of freedom. As, Ben Bolker points out, R uses 9.94 whereas the manual calculation in the book uses $9.94 - 2 = 7.94$ from it. The book does not say why it subtracts 2. It only assumes that the observations are independent and unpaired but is silent about the variance.



The answer by Neeraj reproduces the calculation of the degrees of freedom that is given in the Wikipedia article to the Welch's t-test.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I'm trying to reproduce how a t-test works using the example from page 211 in The Art Of Computer System Performance Analysis by Raj Jain.



The calculation is as follows:



# system A sample and statistics
a <- c(5.36, 16.57, 0.62, 1.41, 0.64, 7.26)
x_a <- mean(a)
s2_a <- var(a)
n_a <- length(a)

# system B sample and statistics
b <- c(19.12, 3.52, 3.38, 2.5, 3.6, 1.74)
x_b <- mean(b)
s2_b <- var(b)
n_b <- length(b)

# computation of t-test
s <- (s2_a/n_a + s2_b/n_b)^(1/2)
v <- ((s2_a/n_a + s2_b/n_b)^2)/((1/(n_a - 1))*((s2_a/n_a)^2) + (1/(n_b - 1))*((s2_b/n_b)^2)) - 2

# 90% confidence interval
(x_a - x_b) + c(1, -1) * qt(c(0.95), v) * s


The output of the last computation is (6.55, -7.22) which matches the result given in the book (see erratas here: https://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/books/ftp/errors_all.pdf).



However, the built-in t-test gives a different result:



> t.test(a, b, conf.level = 0.9)

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: a and b
t = -0.09015, df = 9.9434, p-value = 0.93
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
90 percent confidence interval:
-7.038828 6.372161
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
5.310000 5.643333


The built-in function gives a confidence interval of (-7.04, 6.37). I'm unable to reproduce this interval. What is the cause of the difference? Is my calculation wrong?



Update: The different result is due to a different value for $v$, indicating the degrees of freedom. As, Ben Bolker points out, R uses 9.94 whereas the manual calculation in the book uses $9.94 - 2 = 7.94$ from it. The book does not say why it subtracts 2. It only assumes that the observations are independent and unpaired but is silent about the variance.



The answer by Neeraj reproduces the calculation of the degrees of freedom that is given in the Wikipedia article to the Welch's t-test.







r t-test






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 12 hours ago





















New contributor




Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked yesterday









Viktor Rosenfeld

283




283




New contributor




Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    Haven't dug into the calculations, but R gives df=9.94 whereas your manual calculation gives df=7.94. deparse(body(stats:::t.test.default))[73:77] will show you R's internal df calculations ...
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday
















  • 1




    Haven't dug into the calculations, but R gives df=9.94 whereas your manual calculation gives df=7.94. deparse(body(stats:::t.test.default))[73:77] will show you R's internal df calculations ...
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday










1




1




Haven't dug into the calculations, but R gives df=9.94 whereas your manual calculation gives df=7.94. deparse(body(stats:::t.test.default))[73:77] will show you R's internal df calculations ...
– Ben Bolker
yesterday






Haven't dug into the calculations, but R gives df=9.94 whereas your manual calculation gives df=7.94. deparse(body(stats:::t.test.default))[73:77] will show you R's internal df calculations ...
– Ben Bolker
yesterday












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote



accepted










You are making mistake in calculating your degree of freedom.



Here is the code, that exactly reproduce the R t.test results.



a <- c(5.36, 16.57, 0.62, 1.41, 0.64, 7.26)
b <- c(19.12, 3.52, 3.38, 2.5, 3.6, 1.74)

v1 <- var(a)
v2 <- var(b)

n1 <- length(a)
n2 <- length(b)

se <- sqrt(v1/n1 + v2/n2)

nu <- se^4 / ((v1^2 /(n1^2*(n1 -1))) + (v2^2/(n2^2*(n2-1)))) #degree of freedom

#Confidence Interval
mean(a) - mean(b) + c(1, -1)* qt(.95, nu)*se

> 6.372161 -7.038828


It exactly matches with t.test results



t.test(a, b, conf.level = 0.9)





share|cite|improve this answer





















  • at first glance, Wikipedia's Welch test df formula appears to be different. I wonder if there are different variants ... ???
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday










  • I used wikipedia formula, and it exactly replicate the R result.
    – Neeraj
    yesterday










  • This is Welch's t-test, which does not assume variance are equal for both the group.
    – Neeraj
    yesterday










  • I knew it was Welch, but I may have been looking too quickly at the formula.
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday










  • @Ben There are indeed variants of Welch-Satterthwaite.
    – Glen_b
    yesterday











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f377759%2freproducing-t-test-in-r-gives-different-result-than-built-in-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
6
down vote



accepted










You are making mistake in calculating your degree of freedom.



Here is the code, that exactly reproduce the R t.test results.



a <- c(5.36, 16.57, 0.62, 1.41, 0.64, 7.26)
b <- c(19.12, 3.52, 3.38, 2.5, 3.6, 1.74)

v1 <- var(a)
v2 <- var(b)

n1 <- length(a)
n2 <- length(b)

se <- sqrt(v1/n1 + v2/n2)

nu <- se^4 / ((v1^2 /(n1^2*(n1 -1))) + (v2^2/(n2^2*(n2-1)))) #degree of freedom

#Confidence Interval
mean(a) - mean(b) + c(1, -1)* qt(.95, nu)*se

> 6.372161 -7.038828


It exactly matches with t.test results



t.test(a, b, conf.level = 0.9)





share|cite|improve this answer





















  • at first glance, Wikipedia's Welch test df formula appears to be different. I wonder if there are different variants ... ???
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday










  • I used wikipedia formula, and it exactly replicate the R result.
    – Neeraj
    yesterday










  • This is Welch's t-test, which does not assume variance are equal for both the group.
    – Neeraj
    yesterday










  • I knew it was Welch, but I may have been looking too quickly at the formula.
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday










  • @Ben There are indeed variants of Welch-Satterthwaite.
    – Glen_b
    yesterday















up vote
6
down vote



accepted










You are making mistake in calculating your degree of freedom.



Here is the code, that exactly reproduce the R t.test results.



a <- c(5.36, 16.57, 0.62, 1.41, 0.64, 7.26)
b <- c(19.12, 3.52, 3.38, 2.5, 3.6, 1.74)

v1 <- var(a)
v2 <- var(b)

n1 <- length(a)
n2 <- length(b)

se <- sqrt(v1/n1 + v2/n2)

nu <- se^4 / ((v1^2 /(n1^2*(n1 -1))) + (v2^2/(n2^2*(n2-1)))) #degree of freedom

#Confidence Interval
mean(a) - mean(b) + c(1, -1)* qt(.95, nu)*se

> 6.372161 -7.038828


It exactly matches with t.test results



t.test(a, b, conf.level = 0.9)





share|cite|improve this answer





















  • at first glance, Wikipedia's Welch test df formula appears to be different. I wonder if there are different variants ... ???
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday










  • I used wikipedia formula, and it exactly replicate the R result.
    – Neeraj
    yesterday










  • This is Welch's t-test, which does not assume variance are equal for both the group.
    – Neeraj
    yesterday










  • I knew it was Welch, but I may have been looking too quickly at the formula.
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday










  • @Ben There are indeed variants of Welch-Satterthwaite.
    – Glen_b
    yesterday













up vote
6
down vote



accepted







up vote
6
down vote



accepted






You are making mistake in calculating your degree of freedom.



Here is the code, that exactly reproduce the R t.test results.



a <- c(5.36, 16.57, 0.62, 1.41, 0.64, 7.26)
b <- c(19.12, 3.52, 3.38, 2.5, 3.6, 1.74)

v1 <- var(a)
v2 <- var(b)

n1 <- length(a)
n2 <- length(b)

se <- sqrt(v1/n1 + v2/n2)

nu <- se^4 / ((v1^2 /(n1^2*(n1 -1))) + (v2^2/(n2^2*(n2-1)))) #degree of freedom

#Confidence Interval
mean(a) - mean(b) + c(1, -1)* qt(.95, nu)*se

> 6.372161 -7.038828


It exactly matches with t.test results



t.test(a, b, conf.level = 0.9)





share|cite|improve this answer












You are making mistake in calculating your degree of freedom.



Here is the code, that exactly reproduce the R t.test results.



a <- c(5.36, 16.57, 0.62, 1.41, 0.64, 7.26)
b <- c(19.12, 3.52, 3.38, 2.5, 3.6, 1.74)

v1 <- var(a)
v2 <- var(b)

n1 <- length(a)
n2 <- length(b)

se <- sqrt(v1/n1 + v2/n2)

nu <- se^4 / ((v1^2 /(n1^2*(n1 -1))) + (v2^2/(n2^2*(n2-1)))) #degree of freedom

#Confidence Interval
mean(a) - mean(b) + c(1, -1)* qt(.95, nu)*se

> 6.372161 -7.038828


It exactly matches with t.test results



t.test(a, b, conf.level = 0.9)






share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered yesterday









Neeraj

815619




815619












  • at first glance, Wikipedia's Welch test df formula appears to be different. I wonder if there are different variants ... ???
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday










  • I used wikipedia formula, and it exactly replicate the R result.
    – Neeraj
    yesterday










  • This is Welch's t-test, which does not assume variance are equal for both the group.
    – Neeraj
    yesterday










  • I knew it was Welch, but I may have been looking too quickly at the formula.
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday










  • @Ben There are indeed variants of Welch-Satterthwaite.
    – Glen_b
    yesterday


















  • at first glance, Wikipedia's Welch test df formula appears to be different. I wonder if there are different variants ... ???
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday










  • I used wikipedia formula, and it exactly replicate the R result.
    – Neeraj
    yesterday










  • This is Welch's t-test, which does not assume variance are equal for both the group.
    – Neeraj
    yesterday










  • I knew it was Welch, but I may have been looking too quickly at the formula.
    – Ben Bolker
    yesterday










  • @Ben There are indeed variants of Welch-Satterthwaite.
    – Glen_b
    yesterday
















at first glance, Wikipedia's Welch test df formula appears to be different. I wonder if there are different variants ... ???
– Ben Bolker
yesterday




at first glance, Wikipedia's Welch test df formula appears to be different. I wonder if there are different variants ... ???
– Ben Bolker
yesterday












I used wikipedia formula, and it exactly replicate the R result.
– Neeraj
yesterday




I used wikipedia formula, and it exactly replicate the R result.
– Neeraj
yesterday












This is Welch's t-test, which does not assume variance are equal for both the group.
– Neeraj
yesterday




This is Welch's t-test, which does not assume variance are equal for both the group.
– Neeraj
yesterday












I knew it was Welch, but I may have been looking too quickly at the formula.
– Ben Bolker
yesterday




I knew it was Welch, but I may have been looking too quickly at the formula.
– Ben Bolker
yesterday












@Ben There are indeed variants of Welch-Satterthwaite.
– Glen_b
yesterday




@Ben There are indeed variants of Welch-Satterthwaite.
– Glen_b
yesterday










Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










 

draft saved


draft discarded


















Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Viktor Rosenfeld is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.















 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f377759%2freproducing-t-test-in-r-gives-different-result-than-built-in-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Wiesbaden

Marschland

Dieringhausen