# How to Abuse p-Values in Correlations

In a parallel universe, not so far from ours, Orange’s Correlation widget looks like this.

Quite similar to ours, except that this one shows p-values instead of correlation coefficients. Which is actually better, isn’t it? I mean, we have all attended Statistics 101, and we know that you can never trust correlation coefficients without looking at p-values to check that these correlations are real, right? So why on Earth doesn’t Orange show them?

First a side note. It was Christmas not long ago. Let’s call a ceasefire on the frequentist vs. Bayesian war. Let us, for Christ’s sake, pretend, pardon, agree that null-hypothesis testing is not wrong per se.

The mantra of null-hypothesis significance testing goes like this:

1. Form hypothesis.
2. Collect data.
3. Test hypothesis.

In contrast, the parallel-universe Correlation widget is (ab)used like this:

1. Collect data.
2. Test all possible hypotheses.
3. Cherry pick those that are confirmed.

This is like the Texas sharpshooter who fires first and then draws targets around the shots. You should never formulate hypothesis based on some data and then use this same data to prove it. Because it usually (surprise!) works.

Back to the above snapshot. It shows correlations between 100 vegetables based on 100 different measurements (Ca and Mg content, their consumption in Finland, number of mentions in Star Trek DS9 series, likelihood of finding it on the Mars, and so forth). In other words, it’s all made it up. Just a 100×100 matrix of random numbers with column labels from the simple Wikipedia list of vegetables. Yet the similarity between mung bean and sunchokes surely cannot be dismissed (p < 0.001). Those who like bell pepper should try cilantro, too, because it’s basically one and the same thing (p = 0.001). And I honestly can’t tell black bean from wasabi (p = 0.001).

Here are the p-values for the top 100 most correlated pairs.

``````import numpy as np
import scipy as sp
a = np.random.random((100, 100))
sorted(stats.pearsonr(a[i], a[j])[1] for i in range(100) for j in range(i))[:100]
[0.0002774329730584203, 0.0004158786523819104, 0.0005008536192579852,
0.0007211022164265075, 0.0008268675086438253, 0.0010265740674904762,
(...91 values omitted to reduce the nonsense)
0.01844720610938738, 0.018465602922746942, 0.018662079618069056]``````

First 100 correlations are highly significant.

To learn a lesson we may have failed to grasp at the NHST 101 class, consider that there are 100 * 99 / 2 pairs. What is the significance of the pair at 5-th percentile?

``````correlations = sorted(stats.pearsonr(a[i], a[j])[1] for i in range(100) for j in range(i))
npairs = 100 * 99 / 2
print(correlations[int(pairs * 0.05)]
0.0496868751692227``````

Roughly 0.05. This is exactly what should have happened, because:

``````correlations[int(npairs * 0.10)]
0.10004180592217532
correlations[int(npairs * 0.15)]
0.15236602574520097
correlations[int(npairs * 0.30)]
0.3026816170584785``````

This proves only that p-values for the Pearson correlation coefficient are well calibrated (and that Mersenne twister that is used to generate random numbers in numpy works well). In theory, the p-value for a certain statistics (like Pearson’s r) is the probability of getting such or even more extreme value if the null-hypothesis (of no correlation, in our case) is actually true. 5 % of random hypotheses should have a p-value below 0.05, 10 % a value below 10, and 23 % a value below 23.

Imagine what they can do with the Correlations widget in the parallel universe! They compute correlations between all pairs, print out the first 5 % of them and start writing a paper without bothering to look at p-values at all. They know they should be statistically significant even if the data is random.

Which is precisely the reason why our widget must not compute p-values: because people would use it for Texas sharpshooting. P-values make sense only in the context of the proper NHST procedure (still pretending for the sake of Christmas ceasefire). They cannot be computed using the data on which they were found.

If so, why do we have the Correlation widget at all if it’s results are unpublishable? We can use it to find highly correlated pairs in a data sample. But we can’t just attach p-values to them and publish them. By finding these pairs (with assistance of Correlation widget) we just formulate hypotheses. This is only step 1 of the enshrined NHST procedure. We can’t skip the other two: the next step is to collect some new data (existing data won’t do!) and then use it to test the hypotheses (step 3).

Following this procedure doesn’t save us from data dredging. There are still plenty of ways to cheat. It is the most tempting to select the first 100 most correlated pairs (or, actually, any 100 pairs), (re)compute correlations on some new data and publish the top 5 % of these pairs. The official solution for this is a patchwork of various corrections for multiple hypotheses testing, but… Well, they don’t work, but we should say no more here. You know, Christmas ceasefire.

# Orange Workshops: Luxembourg, Pavia, Ljubljana

February was a month of Orange workshops.

## Ljubljana: Biologists

We (Tomaž, Martin and I) have started in Ljubljana with a hands-on course for the COST Action FA1405 Systems Biology Training School. This was a four hour workshop with an introduction to classification and clustering, and then with application of machine learning to analysis of gene expression data on a plant called Arabidopsis. The organization of this course has even inspired us for a creation of a new widget GOMapMan Ontology that was added to Bioinformatics add-on. We have also experimented with workflows that combine gene expressions and images of mutant. The idea was to find genes with similar expression profile, and then show images of the plants for which these genes have stood out.

## Luxembourg: Statisticians

This workshop took place at STATEC, Luxembourgh’s National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies. We (Anže and I) got invited by Nico Weydert, STATEC’s deputy director, and gave a two day lecture on machine learning and data mining to a room full of experienced statisticians. While the purpose was to showcase Orange as a tool for machine learning, we have learned a lot from participants of the course: the focus of machine learning is still different from that of classical statistics.

Statisticians at STATEC, like all other statisticians, I guess, value, above all, understanding of the data, where accuracy of the models does not count if it cannot be explained. Machine learning often sacrifices understanding for accuracy. With focus on data and model visualization, Orange positions itself somewhere in between, but after our Luxembourg visit we are already planning on new widgets for explanation of predictions.

## Pavia: Engineers

About fifty engineers of all kinds at University of Pavia. Few undergrads, then mostly graduate students, some postdocs and even quite a few of the faculty staff have joined this two day course. It was a bit lighter that the one in Luxembourg, but also covered essentials of machine learning: data management, visualization and classification with quite some emphasis on overfitting on the first day, and then clustering and data projection on the second day. We finished with a showcase on image embedding and analysis. I have in particular enjoyed this last part of the workshop, where attendees were asked to grab a set of images and use Orange to find if they can cluster or classify them correctly. They were all kinds of images that they have gathered, like flowers, racing cars, guitars, photos from nature, you name it, and it was great to find that deep learning networks can be such good embedders, as most students found that machine learning on their image sets works surprisingly well.

We thank Riccardo Bellazzi, an organizer of Pavia course, for inviting us. Oh, yeah, the pizza at Rossopommodoro was great as always, though Michella’s pasta al pesto e piselli back at Riccardo’s home was even better.

# A visit from the Tilburg University

Biolab is currently hosting two amazing data scientists from the Tilburg University – dr. Marie Nilsen and dr. Eric Postma, who are preparing a 20-lecture MOOC on data science for non-technical audience. A part of the course will use Orange. The majority of their students is coming from humanities, law, economy and behavioral studies, thus we are discussing options and opportunities for adapting Orange for social scientists. Another great thing is that the course is designed for beginner level data miners, showcasing that anybody can mine the data and learn from it. And then consult with statisticians and data mining expert (of course!).

To honor this occasion we invite you to check out the Polynomial regression widget, which is specially intended for educational use. There, you can showcase the problem of overfitting through visualization.

First, we set up a workflow.

Then we paint, say, at most 10 points into the Paint Data widget. (Why at most ten? You’ll see later.)

Now we open our Polynomial Regression widget, where we play with polynomial degree. Polynomial Degree 1 gives us a line. With coefficient 2 we get a curve that fits only one point. However, with the coefficient 7 we fit all the points with one curve. Yay!

But hold on! The curve now becomes very steep. Would the lower end of the curve at about (0.9, -2.2) still be a realistic estimate of our data set? Probably not. Even when we look at the Data Table with coefficient values, they seem to skyrocket.

This is a typical danger of overfitting, which is often hard to explain, but with the help of these three widgets becomes as clear as day!
Now go out and share the knowledge!!!