Probability & Statistics Day 2012 Group Photo
PROBABILITY & STATISTICS DAY
Funded By: National Security Agency | Hosted By: Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Consulting
Group Photo from the 6th Annual Probability & Statistics Day at UMBC 2012
7th Annual April 26-27, 2013

Register A special feature of Probability and Statistics Day at UMBC 2013 is that the conference, including the workshop, is open to all statistics graduate students from UMBC and local universites free of charge; however, REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED! The deadline to register is Friday, April 12, 2013.   // REGISTER NOW

For more information, contact any member of the organizing committee:

Bimal Sinha
Conference Chair
443.538.3012

Kofi Adragni
  410.455.2406
Yvonne Huang
  410.455.2422
Yaakov Malinovsky
  410.455.2968
Thomas Mathew
  410.455.2418
Nagaraj Neerchal
  410.455.2437
DoHwan Park
  410.455.2408
Junyong Park
  410.455.2407
Anindya Roy
  410.455.2435
Elizabeth Stanwyck
  410.455.5731

Sponsor

Participant Information

Peter Linton

Paper: On a Comparison of Tests of Homogeneity of Binomial Proportions

(may be presenting a different paper if research goes well) There are multiple tests of homogeneity of binomial proportions in the statistics literature. However, when working with sparse data, most test procedures may fail to perform well. In this article we review nine classical and recent testing procedures, including the standard Pearson and likelihood ratio tests; exact conditional and unconditional tests; tests based on moment matching chi-squared approximations; a recently proposed test based on a normal approximation in an asymptotic framework for sparse data; and a recent test based on higher order moment corrections using an Edgeworth approximation. For each test we review its theoretical underpinning, and show how to calculate the P -value. Most of the P -values can be readily calculated in a statistical computing software package such as R. We compare type I error probability and power via simulation. As expected, none of the procedures uniformly outperforms the others in terms of type I error probability and power, but we can make some recommendations based on our empirical results. In particular, we indicate scenarios in which certain otherwise reasonable test procedures can perform inadequately.