# R: Think Bayes Euro Problem

# R: Think Bayes Euro Problem

Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.

Join For FreexMatters delivers integration-driven collaboration that relays data between systems, while engaging the right people to proactively resolve issues. Read the Monitoring in a Connected Enterprise whitepaper and learn about 3 tools for resolving incidents quickly.

I’ve got back to working my way through Think Bayes after a month’s break and started out with the one euro coin problem in Chapter 4:

A statistical statement appeared in “The Guardian” on Friday January 4, 2002:

When spun on edge 250 times, a Belgian one-euro coin came up heads 140 times and tails 110. ‘It looks very suspicious to me,’ said Barry Blight, a statistics lecturer at the London School of Economics. ‘If the coin were unbiased, the chance of getting a result as extreme as that would be less than 7%.’

But do these data give evidence that the coin is biased rather than fair?

We’re going to create a data frame with each row representing the probability that heads shows up that often. We need one row for each value between 0 (no heads) and 100 (all heads) and we’ll start with the assumption that each value can be chosen equally (a uniform prior):

library(dplyr) values = seq(0, 100) scores = rep(1.0 / length(values), length(values)) df = data.frame(score = scores, value = values) > df %>% sample_n(10) score value 60 0.00990099 59 101 0.00990099 100 10 0.00990099 9 41 0.00990099 40 2 0.00990099 1 83 0.00990099 82 44 0.00990099 43 97 0.00990099 96 100 0.00990099 99 12 0.00990099 11

Now we need to feed in our observations. We need to create a vector containing 140 heads and 110 tails. The ‘rep’ function comes in handy here:

observations = c(rep("T", times = 110), rep("H", times = 140)) > observations [1] "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" [29] "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" [57] "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" [85] "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "T" "H" "H" [113] "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" [141] "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" [169] "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" [197] "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" [225] "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H" "H"

Now we need to iterate over each of the observations and update our data frame appropriately.

for(observation in observations) { if(observation == "H") { df = df %>% mutate(score = score * (value / 100.0)) } else { df = df %>% mutate(score = score * (1.0 - (value / 100.0))) } } df = df %>% mutate(weighted = score / sum(score))

Now that we’ve done that we can calculate the maximum likelihood, mean, median and credible interval. We’ll create a ‘percentile’ function to help us out:

percentile = function(df, p) { df %>% filter(cumsum(weighted) > p) %>% head(1) %>% select(value) %>% as.numeric }

And now let’s calculate the values:

# Maximum likelihood > df %>% filter(weighted == max(weighted)) %>% select(value) %>% as.numeric [1] 56 # Mean > df %>% mutate(mean = value * weighted) %>% select(mean) %>% sum [1] 55.95238 # Median > percentile(df, 0.5) [1] 56 # Credible Interval percentage = 90 prob = (1 - percentage / 100.0) / 2 # lower > percentile(df, prob) [1] 51 # upper > percentile(df, 1 - prob) [1] 61

This all wraps up nicely into a function:

euro = function(values, priors, observations) { df = data.frame(score = priors, value = values) for(observation in observations) { if(observation == "H") { df = df %>% mutate(score = score * (value / 100.0)) } else { df = df %>% mutate(score = score * (1.0 - (value / 100.0))) } } return(df %>% mutate(weighted = score / sum(score))) }

which we can call like so:

values = seq(0,100) priors = rep(1.0 / length(values), length(values)) observations = c(rep("T", times = 110), rep("H", times = 140)) df = euro(values, priors, observations)

The next part of the problem requires us to change the prior distribution to be more weighted to values close to 50%. We can tweak the parameters we pass into the function accordingly:

values = seq(0,100) priors = sapply(values, function(x) ifelse(x < 50, x, 100 - x)) priors = priors / sum(priors) observations = c(rep("T", times = 110), rep("H", times = 140)) df = euro(values, priors, observations)

In fact even with the adjusted priors we still end up with the same posterior distribution:

> df %>% filter(weighted == max(weighted)) %>% select(value) %>% as.numeric [1] 56 > df %>% mutate(mean = value * weighted) %>% select(mean) %>% sum [1] 55.7435 > percentile(df, 0.5) [1] 56 > percentile(df, 0.05) [1] 51 > percentile(df, 0.95) [1] 61

Discovering, responding to, and resolving incidents is a complex endeavor. Read this narrative to learn how you can do it quickly and effectively by connecting AppDynamics, Moogsoft and xMatters to create a monitoring toolchain.

Published at DZone with permission of Mark Needham , DZone MVB. See the original article here.

Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.

## {{ parent.title || parent.header.title}}

## {{ parent.tldr }}

## {{ parent.linkDescription }}

{{ parent.urlSource.name }}