descriptive statisticsinterquartile
I have a dataset where the 5 number summary is:
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
-0.0082630 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000059 0.0000000 0.7966557
I'm not quite sure how to visualize this/whether this is even possible! It is saying that the IQR is 0, while the average value is not 0?
Under the null hypothesis that the distributions are the same and both samples are obtained randomly and independently from the common distribution, we can work out the sizes of all $5\times 5$ (deterministic) tests that can be made by comparing one letter value to another. Some of these tests appear to have reasonable power to detect differences in distributions.
The original definition of the $5$-letter summary of any ordered batch of numbers $x_1 \le x_2 \le \cdots \le x_n$ is the following [Tukey EDA 1977]:
For any number $m = (i + (i+1))/2$ in $\{(1+2)/2, (2+3)/2, \ldots, (n-1+n)/2\}$ define $x_m = (x_i + x_{i+1})/2.$
Let $\bar{i} = n+1-i$.
Let $m = (n+1)/2$ and $h = (\lfloor m \rfloor + 1)/2.$
The $5$-letter summary is the set $\{X^{-} = x_1, H^{-}=x_h, M=x_m, H^{+}=x_\bar{h}, X^{+}=x_n\}.$ Its elements are known as the minimum, lower hinge, median, upper hinge, and maximum, respectively.
For example, in the batch of data $(-3, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 7, 13, 21)$ we may compute that $n=12$, $m=13/2$, and $h=7/2$, whence
$$\eqalign{ &X^{-} &= -3, \\ &H^{-} &= x_{7/2} = (x_3+x_4)/2 = (1+2)/2 = 3/2, \\ &M &= x_{13/2} = (x_6+x_7)/2 = (5+5)/2 = 5, \\ &H^{+} &= x_\overline{7/2} = x_{19/2} = (x_9+x_{10})/2 = (5+7)/2 = 6, \\ &X^{+} &= x_{12} = 21. }$$
The hinges are close to (but usually not exactly the same as) the quartiles. If quartiles are used, note that in general they will be weighted arithmetic means of two of the order statistics and thereby will lie within one of the intervals $[x_i, x_{i+1}]$ where $i$ can be determined from $n$ and the algorithm used to compute the quartiles. In general, when $q$ is in an interval $[i, i+1]$ I will loosely write $x_q$ to refer to some such weighted mean of $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$.
With two batches of data $(x_i, i=1,\ldots, n)$ and $(y_j, j=1,\ldots,m),$ there are two separate five-letter summaries. We can test the null hypothesis that both are iid random samples of a common distribution $F$ by comparing one of the $x$-letters $x_q$ to one of the $y$-letters $y_r$. For instance, we might compare the upper hinge of $x$ to the lower hinge of $y$ in order to see whether $x$ is significantly less than $y$. This leads to a definite question: how to compute this chance,
$${\Pr}_F(x_q \lt y_r).$$
For fractional $q$ and $r$ this is not possible without knowing $F$. However, because $x_q \le x_{\lceil q \rceil} $ and $y_{\lfloor r \rfloor} \le y_r,$ then a fortiori
$${\Pr}_F(x_q \lt y_r) \le {\Pr}_F(x_{\lceil q \rceil} \lt y_{\lfloor r \rfloor}).$$
We can thereby obtain universal (independent of $F$) upper bounds on the desired probabilities by computing the right hand probability, which compares individual order statistics. The general question in front of us is
What is the chance that the $q^\text{th}$ highest of $n$ values will be less than the $r^\text{th}$ highest of $m$ values drawn iid from a common distribution?
Even this does not have a universal answer unless we rule out the possibility that probability is too heavily concentrated on individual values: in other words, we need to assume that ties are not possible. This means $F$ must be a continuous distribution. Although this is an assumption, it is a weak one and it is non-parametric.
The distribution $F$ plays no role in the calculation, because upon re-expressing all values by means of the probability transform $F$, we obtain new batches
$$X^{(F)} = F(x_1) \le F(x_2) \le \cdots \le F(x_n)$$
and
$$Y^{(F)} = F(y_1) \le F(y_2) \le \cdots \le F(y_m).$$
Moreover, this re-expression is monotonic and increasing: it preserves order and in so doing preserves the event $x_q \lt y_r.$ Because $F$ is continuous, these new batches are drawn from a Uniform$[0,1]$ distribution. Under this distribution--and dropping the now superfluous "$F$" from the notation--we easily find that $x_q$ has a Beta$(q, n+1-q)$ = Beta$(q, \bar{q})$ distribution:
$$\Pr(x_q\le x) = \frac{n!}{(n-q)!(q-1)!}\int_0^x t^{q-1}(1-t)^{n-q}dt.$$
Similarly the distribution of $y_r$ is Beta$(r, m+1-r)$. By performing the double integration over the region $x_q \lt y_r$ we can obtain the desired probability,
$$\Pr(x_q \lt y_r) = \frac{\Gamma (m+1) \Gamma (n+1) \Gamma (q+r)\, _3\tilde{F}_2(q,q-n,q+r;\ q+1,m+q+1;\ 1)}{\Gamma (r) \Gamma (n-q+1)}$$
Because all values $n, m, q, r$ are integral, all the $\Gamma$ values are really just factorials: $\Gamma(k) = (k-1)! = (k-1)(k-2)\cdots(2)(1)$ for integral $k\ge 0.$ The little-known function $_3\tilde{F}_2$ is a regularized hypergeometric function. In this case it can be computed as a rather simple alternating sum of length $n-q+1$, normalized by some factorials:
$$\Gamma(q+1)\Gamma(m+q+1)\ {_3\tilde{F}_2}(q,q-n,q+r;\ q+1,m+q+1;\ 1) \\ =\sum_{i=0}^{n-q}(-1)^i \binom{n-q}{i} \frac{q(q+r)\cdots(q+r+i-1)}{(q+i)(1+m+q)(2+m+q)\cdots(i+m+q)} \\ = 1 - \frac{\binom{n-q}{1}q(q+r)}{(1+q)(1+m+q)} + \frac{\binom{n-q}{2}q(q+r)(1+q+r)}{(2+q)(1+m+q)(2+m+q)} - \cdots.$$
This has reduced the calculation of the probability to nothing more complicated than addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. The computational effort scales as $O((n-q)^2).$ By exploiting the symmetry
$$\Pr(x_q \lt y_r) = 1 - \Pr(y_r \lt x_q)$$
the new calculation scales as $O((m-r)^2),$ allowing us to pick the easier of the two sums if we wish. This will rarely be necessary, though, because $5$-letter summaries tend to be used only for small batches, rarely exceeding $n, m \approx 300.$
Suppose the two batches have sizes $n=8$ and $m=12$. The relevant order statistics for $x$ and $y$ are $1,3,5,7,8$ and $1,3,6,9,12,$ respectively. Here is a table of the chance that $x_q \lt y_r$ with $q$ indexing the rows and $r$ indexing the columns:
q\r 1 3 6 9 12
1 0.4 0.807 0.9762 0.9987 1.
3 0.0491 0.2962 0.7404 0.9601 0.9993
5 0.0036 0.0521 0.325 0.7492 0.9856
7 0.0001 0.0032 0.0542 0.3065 0.8526
8 0. 0.0004 0.0102 0.1022 0.6
A simulation of 10,000 iid sample pairs from a standard Normal distribution gave results close to these.
To construct a one-sided test at size $\alpha,$ such as $\alpha = 5\%,$ to determine whether the $x$ batch is significantly less than the $y$ batch, look for values in this table close to or just under $\alpha$. Good choices are at $(q,r)=(3,1),$ where the chance is $0.0491,$ at $(5,3)$ with a chance of $0.0521$, and at $(7,6)$ with a chance of $0.0542.$ Which one to use depends on your thoughts about the alternative hypothesis. For instance, the $(3,1)$ test compares the lower hinge of $x$ to the smallest value of $y$ and finds a significant difference when that lower hinge is the smaller one. This test is sensitive to an extreme value of $y$; if there is some concern about outlying data, this might be a risky test to choose. On the other hand the test $(7,6)$ compares the upper hinge of $x$ to the median of $y$. This one is very robust to outlying values in the $y$ batch and moderately robust to outliers in $x$. However, it compares middle values of $x$ to middle values of $y$. Although this is probably a good comparison to make, it will not detect differences in the distributions that occur only in either tail.
Being able to compute these critical values analytically helps in selecting a test. Once one (or several) tests are identified, their power to detect changes is probably best evaluated through simulation. The power will depend heavily on how the distributions differ. To get a sense of whether these tests have any power at all, I conducted the $(5,3)$ test with the $y_j$ drawn iid from a Normal$(1,1)$ distribution: that is, its median was shifted by one standard deviation. In a simulation the test was significant $54.4\%$ of the time: that is appreciable power for datasets this small.
Much more can be said, but all of it is routine stuff about conducting two-sided tests, how to assess effects sizes, and so on. The principal point has been demonstrated: given the $5$-letter summaries (and sizes) of two batches of data, it is possible to construct reasonably powerful non-parametric tests to detect differences in their underlying populations and in many cases we might even have several choices of test to select from. The theory developed here has a broader application to comparing two populations by means of a appropriately selected order statistics from their samples (not just those approximating the letter summaries).
These results have other useful applications. For instance, a boxplot is a graphical depiction of a $5$-letter summary. Thus, along with knowledge of the sample size shown by a boxplot, we have available a number of simple tests (based on comparing parts of one box and whisker to another one) to assess the significance of visually apparent differences in those plots.
It's certainly possible to place some bounds on the median, but without further assumptions they might potentially be pretty weak bounds. The problem is that the only gauge you have on how skew it might be (particularly, in the sense of the second Pearson skewness) is the relative positions of the extrema to the mean, and they're typically a very weak indicator of that. Adding in the fact that the variable is nonnegative gives a second very weak indicator of skewness (the relative size of the standard deviation and mean).
But the second Pearson skewness does give us a bound: for a distribution, the median cannot be more than one standard deviation from the mean. (For a sample, because of the effect of the usual Bessel correction on standard deviation, it must lie somewhat inside those limits.)
If the standard deviation is small, that may be adequate for some purposes.
If we denote the median as $\stackrel{\sim}{x}$, the mean as $\bar{x}$, the usual sample standard deviation as $s_{n-1}$ (and let $s_n=\sqrt{\frac{n-1}{n}}s_{n-1}$ be the uncorrected s.d.), the minimum as $x_{(1)}$ and the maximum as $x_{(n)}$ then naively, we can immediately say that
$$\max(x_{(1)},\bar{x}-s_n)\leq\,\,\stackrel{\sim}{x}\,\,\leq \min(x_{(n)},\bar{x}+s_n)\,.$$
By more careful consideration of all the information, knowing the minimum and maximum might bound the result still further, but my guess is not necessarily by very much (it may help more in some cases than others). Knowing the sample size, $n$, may also add some important information, particularly if $n$ is small.
The fact that the variable is non-negative might help. Markov's inequality suggests that the median cannot be more than twice the mean, perhaps that may sometimes improve the bound from the mean plus a standard deviation (though, if the s.d. were greater than the mean, you'd usually expect the median to be lower than the mean; again it may be possible to get better bounds still).
Anyway, adding that bound to our previous naive bounds, we have:
$$\max(x_{(1)},\bar{x}-s_n)\leq\,\,\stackrel{\sim}{x}\,\,\leq \min(x_{(n)},\bar{x}+s_n,2\bar{x})\,.$$
(In that situation we also know that the median is above $0$, but given we know $x_{(1)}$, that knowledge doesn't ever improve the lower bound.)
Edit: I simulated a few data sets from different distributions (partly to see how the bounds behaved and partly as a double check that I hadn't made any egregious errors). One of the examples did have the property that $2\bar x$ was a bit less than $\bar x +s_n$ (thus reducing the upper bound on the median, so adding that third component does sometimes help), but as I expected might often be the case, the actual median was less than the mean (so it didn't make the upper bound very close).
Still, the intervals did actually enclose the median for every example I did.
If you assumed some distributional form (like, say, normality), then of course you can get much better estimates (/intervals).
Best Answer
The IQR is a measure of spread and is not related to the mean. You can have any mean with any IQR. It's not clear what relationship you expect there to be.
To see this, start by making a data set with the IQR you want; for example you can get an IQR of 0 by making a lot of values (just over half will do) in the middle of your data set the same, like so:
(13 values, 7 of them equal and in the middle; in this case the mean is 5)
Now add any number you choose to all the values. Say 98. Now the numbers are
The IQR is still 0 but the mean is now 103 (the 5 we started with + the 98 we added).