Posts Tagged ‘ Decision Theory ’

A completely reasonable-sounding statement with which I strongly disagree

May 5, 2017
By

From a couple years ago: In the context of a listserv discussion about replication in psychology experiments, someone wrote: The current best estimate of the effect size is somewhere in between the original study and the replication’s reported value. This conciliatory, split-the-difference statement sounds reasonable, and it might well represent good politics in the context […] The post A completely reasonable-sounding statement with which I strongly disagree appeared first on…

Read more »

7th graders trained to avoid Pizzagate-style data exploration—but is the training too rigid?

May 5, 2017
By

[cat picture] Laura Kapitula writes: I wanted to share a cute story that gave me a bit of hope. My daughter who is in 7th grade was doing her science project. She had designed an experiment comparing lemon batteries to potato batteries, a 2×4 design with lemons or potatoes as one factor and number of […] The post 7th graders trained to avoid Pizzagate-style data exploration—but is the training too…

Read more »

What hypothesis testing is all about. (Hint: It’s not what you think.)

May 4, 2017
By

From 2015: The conventional view: Hyp testing is all about rejection. The idea is that if you reject the null hyp at the 5% level, you have a win, you have learned that a certain null model is false and science has progressed, either in the glamorous “scientific revolution” sense that you’ve rejected a central […] The post What hypothesis testing is all about. (Hint: It’s not what you think.)…

Read more »

The Bolt from the Blue

May 2, 2017
By

Lionel Hertzog writes: In the method section of a recent Nature article in my field of research (diversity-ecosystem function) one can read the following: The inclusion of many predictors in statistical models increases the chance of type I error (false positives). To account for this we used a Bernoulli process to detect false discovery rates, […] The post The Bolt from the Blue appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference,…

Read more »

“The earth is flat (p > 0.05): Significance thresholds and the crisis of unreplicable research”

April 30, 2017
By

Valentin Amrhein​, Fränzi Korner-Nievergelt, and Tobias Roth write: The widespread use of ‘statistical significance’ as a license for making a claim of a scientific finding leads to considerable distortion of the scientific process. We review why degrading p-values into ‘significant’ and ‘nonsignificant’ contributes to making studies irreproducible, or to making them seem irreproducible. A major […] The post “The earth is flat (p > 0.05): Significance thresholds and the crisis…

Read more »

Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Index

April 29, 2017
By

Chris Famighetti points us to this page which links to an interactive visualization. There are some problems with the mapping software—when I clicked through, it showed a little map of the western part of the U.S., accompanied by huge swathes of Canada and the Pacific Ocean—and I haven’t taken a look at the methodology. But […] The post Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Index appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal…

Read more »

Using prior knowledge in frequentist tests

April 26, 2017
By

Christian Bartels send along this paper, which he described as an attempt to use informative priors for frequentist test statistics. I replied: I’ve not tried to follow the details but this reminds me of our paper on posterior predictive checks. People think of this as very Bayesian but my original idea when doing this research […] The post Using prior knowledge in frequentist tests appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal…

Read more »

Would you prefer three N=300 studies or one N=900 study?

April 23, 2017
By

Stephen Martin started off with a question: I’ve been thinking about this thought experiment: — Imagine you’re given two papers. Both papers explore the same topic and use the same methodology. Both were preregistered. Paper A has a novel study (n1=300) with confirmed hypotheses, followed by two successful direct replications (n2=300, n3=300). Paper B has […] The post Would you prefer three N=300 studies or one N=900 study? appeared first…

Read more »

Reputational incentives and post-publication review: two (partial) solutions to the misinformation problem

April 18, 2017
By

So. There are erroneous analyses published in scientific journals and in the news. Here I’m not talking not about outright propaganda, but about mistakes that happen to coincide with the preconceptions of their authors. We’ve seen lots of examples. Here are just a few: – Political scientist Larry Bartels is committed to a model of […] The post Reputational incentives and post-publication review: two (partial) solutions to the misinformation problem…

Read more »

Stacking, pseudo-BMA, and AIC type weights for combining Bayesian predictive distributions

April 11, 2017
By
Stacking, pseudo-BMA, and AIC type weights for combining Bayesian predictive distributions

This post is by Aki. We have often been asked in the Stan user forum how to do model combination for Stan models. Bayesian model averaging (BMA) by computing marginal likelihoods is challenging in theory and even more challenging in practice using only the MCMC samples obtained from the full model posteriors. Some users have […] The post Stacking, pseudo-BMA, and AIC type weights for combining Bayesian predictive distributions appeared…

Read more »


Subscribe

Email:

  Subscribe