# $k$ Means

This section is the immediate extension from two means to $k$ means.

The name ANOVA is sometimes used in this setting. ANOVA stands for analysis of analysis of variance, but should be more literally translated to comparing $k$ levels’ means. The reason behind the name ANOVA is that often, but not in this class, the variation amongst the groups compared to variation within the groups gives a reasonable decision rule for determinging when means by level are different.

We continue to work with the dataset $\texttt{carnivora}$. Now we’ll estimate a mean for $k = 4$ of the levels of the categorical variable $\texttt{Family}$: Canidae, Felidae, Mustelidae, and Viverridae. For the body weight data, $\texttt{SW}$, we assume

Let’s plot our data and add the mean as a new layer, now that we’re getting good at plotting. The code below first carefully removes missing data and filters our dataset down to the levels of interest.

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import bplot as bp
from scipy.optimize import minimize
from scipy.stats import norm as normal
import patsy

bp.LaTeX()
bp.dpi(300)


carnivora = pd.read_csv("https://raw.githubusercontent.com/roualdes/data/master/carnivora.csv")
carn = carnivora[carnivora['Family'].isin(["Canidae", "Felidae", "Mustelidae", "Viverridae"])]


for i, (name, gdf) in enumerate(carn.groupby("Family")):
y = gdf['SW']
bp.jitter(np.repeat(i, y.size), y, jitter_y=0)
bp.point(np.asarray([i]), y.mean(), color=bp.cat_color, size=1.5)

families = np.unique(carn['Family'])
bp.xticks(range(len(families)), labels=families, size=14)
bp.labels(x='Family', y='Body weight (kg)', size=18)


<matplotlib.axes._subplots.AxesSubplot at 0x119b4eb70> From the plot above, it seems like Felidae has the greatest mean weight, but it also seems like there is the most variation in Felidae.

### Example

Adapt the code above, along with the violin plot code from the two means section to make a violin plot for the four families above.

Code to fit our model above looks quite similar to our previous efforts in Sections Simple Linear Regression and Two Means.

def ll(beta, yX):
y = yX[:, 0]
X = yX[:, -4:]
yhat = np.full(y.shape, np.nan)
for r in range(X.shape):
yhat[r] = np.sum(beta * X[r,:])
d = y - yhat
return np.sum(d * d)

pX = patsy.dmatrix("~ C(Family)", data=carn)
yX = np.c_[carn["SW"], np.asarray(pX)]

beta = minimize(ll, normal.rvs(loc=10, size=4), args=(yX))["x"]



The same trick is taking place in our model. The “intercept” is really the first level’s mean, Canidae. Each coefficient after that is a level-specific offset relative to Canidae’s mean. To find, say, Mustelidae’s mean, you have to add $\hat{\beta}_0$ to $\hat{\beta}_2$.

np.round(beta + beta, 3)


4.596


These estimates are still no different than group means. Don’t be discouraged, we are building to more complex models than group means. Nonetheless, here’s the empirical evidence.

(carn
.groupby("Family")
["SW"]
.agg("mean"))


Family
Canidae        9.511111
Felidae       36.458947
Mustelidae     4.595667
Viverridae     2.811250
Name: SW, dtype: float64


Quantifying uncertainty in our estimates is carried out with the bootstrap method.

N = carn['SW'].size
R = 999
betas = np.full((R, 4), np.nan)

for r in range(R):
idx = np.random.choice(N, N)
betas[r, :] = minimize(ll, normal.rvs(size=4), args=(yX[idx, :]))["x"]


beta_p = np.percentile(betas, [10, 90], axis=0)


axs = bp.subplots(1, 4)

ylab = lambda i: "Density" if i < 1 else ""
xlab = lambda i: f"$\\beta_{ {i} }$"
for a in range(len(axs)):
bp.current_axis(axs[a])
bp.density(betas[:, a])
bp.percentile_h(betas[:, a], y=0)
bp.rug(beta_p[:, a])
bp.labels(x=xlab(a), y=ylab(a), size=18)

bp.tight_layout()


<matplotlib.axes._subplots.AxesSubplot at 0x11eb6a9b0> beta_p


array([[ 6.99005835, 14.09121455, -7.75871771, -9.32626222],
[12.17099575, 41.13387438, -1.93307932, -4.08192669]])