Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
Cet expos:
Un panorama des critres les plus importants
Quelques nouvelles rgles fondes sur des
hypothses faibles, ou utilisant une approche de
type carte de contrle
1.Composantes principales
i 0 or i > 1 ?
+--------+------------+----------+----------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| NUMERO |
VALEUR
| POURCENT.| POURCENT.|
|
|
|
PROPRE
|
| CUMULE |
|
+--------+------------+----------+----------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
1
|
6.0506
|
35.59 |
35.59 | ******************************************************************************** |
|
2
|
2.9257
|
17.21 |
52.80 | ***************************************
|
|
3
|
2.4905
|
14.65 |
67.45 | *********************************
|
|
4
|
1.2691
|
7.47 |
74.92 | *****************
|
|
5
|
0.9784
|
5.76 |
80.67 | *************
|
|
6
|
0.6530
|
3.84 |
84.51 | *********
|
|
7
|
0.6170
|
3.63 |
88.14 | *********
|
|
8
|
0.4878
|
2.87 |
91.01 | *******
|
|
9
|
0.4215
|
2.48 |
93.49 | ******
|
|
10
|
0.3269
|
1.92 |
95.41 | *****
|
|
11
|
0.2257
|
1.33 |
96.74 | ***
|
|
12
|
0.1843
|
1.08 |
97.83 | ***
|
|
13
|
0.1574
|
0.93 |
98.75 | ***
|
|
14
|
0.0955
|
0.56 |
99.31 | **
|
|
15
|
0.0555
|
0.33 |
99.64 | *
|
|
16
|
0.0481
|
0.28 |
99.92 | *
|
|
17
|
0.0131
|
0.08 | 100.00 | *
|
+--------+------------+----------+----------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
test de sphricit:
a
2 p + 11
(n
)( p k ) ln( ) 2( p k + 2 )( p k +1)/ 2
g
6
n 1( i i ) N (0; i 2)
La mthode delta
Soit
alors
T tel que
( )
T N ;
g '( ) ( )
g (T ) N g ( );
ln i N ln(i );
n 1
( )
10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *--------------------------------------+------------------------------------. . . . . . . . . .*------------------+-----------------* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .*--------------+---------------* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. *--------+-------*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
*-----+-----* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
11
Critres empiriques
Critre de Kaiser
i >1
4 , coude
13
1 = 1 2
2 = 2 3
....
1 = 1 2
2 = 2 3
V ( xi ) =
2
pi
15
Un nouveau critre:
= 1
i =1
i2 = p +
rij2
i j
p 1
i > 1+ 2
n 1
17
18
1 cik2
La contribution
sera juge
n k
significativement grande au seuil = 0.05
i i.1
i =1
E(D2)=p
V(D2)=
2
i
i =1
20
p + 2 2 2i
i =1
21
Exemple villes:
Contribution significative si >7.7%
outliers potentiels si D2>38
22
| Houston94
1.96
9.82 | 0.92 -0.11 -0.70 -2.45 1.06 | 0.3 0.0 0.4 9.3 2.2 |
| Jakarta94
1.96 23.85 | -0.58 2.92 -0.89 2.40 -0.34 | 0.1 5.7 0.6 8.9 0.2 |
| Johannesburg94
1.96 10.20 | 2.47 -0.83 -0.30 -0.75 0.59 | 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.7 |
| Lagos94
1.96 87.24 | -0.70 1.41 8.92 0.15 -1.26 | 0.2 1.3 62.7 0.0 3.2 |
| Lisboa94
1.96
4.38 | 1.59 0.00 -0.70 0.45 0.35 | 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 |
| London94
1.96 10.36 | -1.12 -1.06 -1.05 0.94 -0.58 | 0.4 0.8 0.9 1.4 0.7 |
| LosAngeles94
1.96
9.33 | -1.26 1.13 -1.22 -0.97 0.96 | 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 |
| Luxembourg94
1.96
7.82 | -0.62 -1.44 -0.82 0.54 -0.51 | 0.1 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 |
| Madrid94
1.96
6.14 | 1.04 -1.45 -0.57 0.69 -0.82 | 0.4 1.4 0.3 0.7 1.3 |
| Manama94
1.96
6.81 | 1.11 0.19 -0.46 -0.40 -0.74 | 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.1 |
| Manila94
1.96 15.92 | 2.77 2.38 0.50 -0.21 0.99 | 2.5 3.8 0.2 0.1 2.0 |
| Mexico94
1.96
8.68 | 1.93 1.74 -0.46 -0.97 -0.22 | 1.2 2.0 0.2 1.5 0.1 |
| Milan94
1.96
4.45 | -0.51 -0.89 -0.48 0.17 -0.98 | 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.9 |
| Montreal94
1.96
5.81 | 1.02 -0.81 -0.45 -1.38 1.00 | 0.3 0.4 0.2 2.9 2.0 |
| Nairobi94
1.96 26.22 | 4.95 -0.22 0.79 0.06 -0.05 | 7.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 |
| NewYork94
1.96 13.55 | -2.25 1.54 -1.35 -1.49 -0.22 | 1.6 1.6 1.4 3.4 0.1 |
| Nicosia94
1.96
9.03 | 2.14 -0.91 0.27 0.12 0.82 | 1.5 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.3 |
| Oslo94
1.96 15.50 | -2.49 -2.26 1.06 0.17 1.34 | 2.0 3.4 0.9 0.0 3.6 |
| Panama94
1.96
9.13 | 1.49 0.95 -0.77 0.43 -0.90 | 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.6 |
| Paris94
1.96
8.42 | -2.00 -1.29 0.47 0.41 -1.14 | 1.3 1.1 0.2 0.3 2.6 |
| Prague94
1.96 19.39 | 3.96 -0.11 0.00 -0.67 -0.74 | 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.1 |
| RiodeJaneiro94
1.96
7.17 | 2.06 0.83 -0.17 0.85 -0.83 | 1.4 0.5 0.0 1.1 1.4 |
| SaoPaulo94
1.96
8.76 | 1.15 0.32 -1.06 1.38 -1.22 | 0.4 0.1 0.9 2.9 3.0 |
| Seoul94
1.96 18.71 | -1.84 2.29 0.30 -2.51 0.25 | 1.1 3.5 0.1 9.7 0.1 |
| Singapore94
1.96 42.43 | -2.81 2.70 -0.20 3.33 3.15 | 2.6 4.9 0.0 17.2 19.9 |
| Stockholm94
1.96
7.47 | -0.86 -1.96 0.49 0.27 0.53 | 0.2 2.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 |
| Sidney94
1.96
6.57 | 0.60 -1.26 -0.81 -0.99 0.21 | 0.1 1.1 0.5 1.5 0.1 |
| Taipei94
1.96
8.49 | -0.34 1.69 -0.62 -0.68 0.82 | 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.7 1.3 |
| Tel-Aviv94
1.96 10.58 | 1.39 -0.41 0.77 0.14 1.90 | 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.0 7.3 |
| Tokyo94
1.96 109.65 | -9.90 1.42 1.05 -1.51 -1.33 | 31.8 1.3 0.9 3.5 3.6 |
| Toronto94
1.96
7.07 | 0.81 -0.68 -0.96 -1.32 0.76 | 0.2 0.3 0.7 2.7 1.2 |
| Vienna94
1.96
7.93 | -1.28 -2.08 -0.10 0.18 -0.55 | 0.5 2.9 0.0 0.1 0.6 |
| Zurich94
1.96 17.16 | -3.10 -1.57 0.32 0.17 -0.46 | 3.1 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.4 |
+---------------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+
23
p + 2.8 p
ce qui est gnralement trop petit (ici 28 au lieu
de 38)
24
(c
j =3
) = j
j 2
2
j .1
j =3
i =3
i =3
+
2
2
i
i
25
2 =
nij
ni.
1
n
pi =
= diag (
.....)
n. j
n
ni.
n
1 = mtrique du chi-deux
Critre minimiser:
q
k
1
j
fk = i + 2k ( p + k + q ) + 4
n
k +1
j =1 l = k +1 j l
29
F
= dn n / niG 1 + a b
H
r
nij
i. . j
il
jl
l =1
I
J
K
l
n~ij = ni .n. j
F
/ niG 1 + a b
H
k
il
l =1
jl
I
J
K
l
Au lieu du classique Qk
d
=
i, j
nij n~ij
n~
ij
i, j
(nij nij ) 2
ni.n. j
Tests successifs
k=0 ? (indpendance)
pij = pi. p. j
Si indpendance rejete k=1?
i1 j1
pij = pi. p. j 1 +
i1 j1 i 2 j 2
+
Si k=1 rejet, k=2? pij = pi. p. j 1 +
1
2
Etc.
Modle
satur:
im jm
pij = pi. p. j 1 +
m =1
m
32
33
34
Test de Malinvaud
n=21900 p=19 q=13
r=12
ddl = 18x12=216
216 > 356) = 0
Test
Test
Test
36
i =1
1
i = mi 1
p i =1
i =1
i =1
1
2
i = 2
p
i =1
1
(mi 1) + 2
p
ij2
i j
38
quivalentes, mais
i
i
39
d o
E ( )
i =1
2
i
q
1 1
= 2 + 2 (mi 1)( m j 1)
p
p n i j
q
1
1 2
2
en posant S = ( )
q i =1 i p
on a:
E ( S2 ) =
2
( mi 1)( m j 1)
1 11
(mi 1)( m j 1)
2
p n qi j
40
******************
*****************
****************
***************
**************
**************
*************
************
***********
***********
**********
*********
********
********
*******
*******
*******
******
******
*****
*****
****
***
***
42
**********************
*********************
*********************
*********************
*********************
*********************
*********************
*********************
*********************
********************
********************
********************
********************
********************
********************
********************
********************
*******************
*******************
*******************
*******************
*******************
*******************
*******************
******************
43
44
En guise de conclusion
45
Rfrences
S.Ben Ammou, G.Saporta (1998) Sur la normalit asymptotique des valeurs propres en ACM
sous lhypothse dindpendance des variables. Revue de Statistique Applique , Vol. XLVI,
n3, p.21-35,
Karlis, D., Saporta, G. and Spinakis A. (2003) A Simple Rule for the Selection of Principal
Components, Communications in Statistics, Theory and Applications, 32, 3, 643-666
L.Lebart (1976). The significance of Eigenvalues issued from Correspondence Analysis
COMPSTAT, Physica Verlag, Vienna, p 38-45 .
L.Lebart, A.Morineau, M.Piron (2006). Statistique exploratoire multidimensionnelle. 4me
dition, Dunod, Paris
E.Malinvaud, (1987) Data analysis in applied socio-economic statistics with special
consideration of correspondence analysis, Marketing Science Conference, Jouy en Josas,
France, 1987
M.E.ONeill. (1978). Asymptotic distributions of the canonical correlations from contingency
tables. Australian Journal of. Statistics. 20(1) p 75-82.
M.E.ONeill (1978). Distributional expansion for canonical correlations from contingency
tables . Journal of the Royal. Statistical Society. B. 40, n3 p 303-312.
G.Saporta, N.Tambrea (1993): About the selection of the number of components in
correspondence analysis in J.Janssen et C.H.Skiadas, eds. Applied Stochastic Models and
Data Analysis, World Scientific, p. 846-856,
G. Saporta (1999) Some simple rules for interpreting outputs of principal components and
correspondence analysis . In ASMDA99, IX International Symposium on Applied Stochastic
Models and Data Analysis, Lisbonne, Portugal, 14-17 Juin 1999
L.Zater (1989). Contribution a l'tude de la variabilit des valeurs propres et du choix de la
dimension en analyse factorielle des correspondances. Thse de l'Universit Paris IX
Dauphine.
46