Normal Distribution
nothing is called 95% until it has been counted
Concept

Imbalance — where it appears

The difference between the arms in some feature of the units, which enters the treatment estimate's error whenever the outcome depends on that feature. It enters through the shape the outcome depends on the feature by, so a rule balancing a mean removes all of a linear shape and none of a pure interaction.

Named by 31 essays across 9 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The six best bases of 2 functions, and what each protects. Every cell is R²(g | span B) — the share of the imbalance in that shape a rule balancing that basis removes — computed from exact inner products between Hermite functions and indicators, with nothing simulated. The rows are ordered by their worst cell, which is the number an experimenter who does not know the shape is exposed to. The best row here guarantees 26.8% against every shape in the list, and the worst of the six guarantees 15.1%: the difference between them is entirely which subspace was picked, at the same cost per arrival.

A basis is a subspace

A balancing rule cannot tell one basis from another with the same span, so choosing what to hand it is choosing a subspace — and then what it removes of any outcome shape is a projection, computable exactly, with no trial anywhere in it.

basis · Criterion A proposal that moves more, refused more often. The two halves of the trade, both exact, on the 410 admissible assignments of twelve units. The integrated autocorrelation time of an imbalance the rule was never handed falls from 7.30 at one swap to 3.97 at three, and the acceptance rate falls with it, from 58.8% to 40.8%. A rejected proposal costs one evaluation and leaves the chain where it was, so acceptance is not the price of anything and the ranking by acceptance is the reverse of the ranking by cost. Past three the family folds: exchanging k of six from each arm is the complement of exchanging six − k, so k = 5 has the same 36 proposals as k = 1 and k = 6 has 1.

A proposal that moves more than two units

The walk's autocorrelation is a fact about its step size and not about its acceptance rate. Exchanging three units from each arm mixes nearly twice as fast as exchanging one, and is refused a third more often.

blocks · Randomisation The test, checked where the answer is known. A fourteen-unit trial at eight tolerances. At each one the admissible set is enumerated — 1534, 886, 304, 158, 126, 116, 102, 84 assignments — and its components counted, which is only possible because 3432 equal splits of fourteen units can be walked. The dots are the test, which walks none of them: two chains, one started at an assignment and one at its complement, compared on a statistic the rule was not handed. Filled marks are tolerances the enumeration says leave the set in more than one piece. The test fires on every one of them and on none of the others, 0 misses and 0 false alarms.

A test rather than a survey

A thin admissible set falls into an arrangement and its mirror image, and the walk that samples it is uniform on half the reference distribution for ever. That was found by enumerating fourteen units, and enumeration stops at twenty-four.

reach · Randomisation Four rules, three shapes, and no ordering that survives. The variance of the unadjusted treatment estimate under each rule, as a fraction of the variance a coin gives, over 450 trials of 200 units each. Against a covariate that enters linearly the rule that reads the number nearly halves it. Against a threshold at 1 it removes about a fifth. Against a quadratic every rule here is at or worse than a coin — they are all optimising a criterion that is one over the variance of an estimate in a model this outcome does not obey, and a constraint that helps nothing still costs something. Nothing in a trial says which column it is in.

Balanced on the wrong function

A rule that reads a covariate's numbers halves the variance of the treatment estimate, if the covariate enters the outcome as a straight line. If it enters as a threshold the rule is worth a fifth of that, and if it enters as a curve every rule here is worse than a coin.

shape · Blocking Two diagnostics, one answer, two different moments. The two-chain statistic on a covariate probe and on the trial's own difference in arm means, at seven tolerances of a fourteen-unit rule, against the enumerated truth. Both are quiet wherever the set is one set and both fire wherever it is not, at every tolerance — which is what says the outcome probe is the same test rather than a resemblance of it. The difference between them is not accuracy and it is not power. It is when: the covariate probe can be run before a single outcome exists, when a practitioner can still loosen the rule or change the sampler, and it can be run again on a different function if it comes back quiet. The outcome probe runs after the trial, on the one column the trial produced, and what it can do with a positive verdict is repair the p-value rather than the design.

The statistic the p-value is about

The test for whether a balanced-assignment walk reaches its whole set is run on a covariate function chosen before the trial. Run on the difference in arm means it is the same test, and it is about the number the trial publishes.

after · Randomisation What the rule blocks is not where it splits. How much of the separating direction each probe carries, over 100 designs of 14 units whose admissible set is enumerated and split into two pieces. The deferral this field answers proposed the constraint's active set — which exchanges the tolerance box actually blocks — as a better probe than the design's own leverage, on the ground that leverage is a heuristic and the active set is the quantity. Modelled from the design and the tolerance, it reads 0.4272 against leverage's 0.5395, at 4.43 paired standard errors the wrong way. Counted exactly over the enumerated set — at a cost no trial can pay — it reads 0.3854, worse again. Both beat a random direction at 0.2622, so they are probes; neither beats the two the earlier field already had.

What the rule blocks

A balancing rule breaks the admissible set into pieces by refusing exchanges. Which exchanges it refuses is computable from the design and the tolerance alone, before any assignment exists — and it makes a probe.

blocked · Randomisation A model of the active set, and the active set. Each of the 14 units of one design, at the share of its exchanges the tolerance box blocks — computed from the design's columns and the tolerance under a uniform position in the box, against counted over all 116 admissible assignments. The diagonal is where the two would agree. Over 192 designs they agree about the ordering of the units at a correlation of 0.8141 ± 0.0112, negative on 0.5% of them, and disagree about the level: 0.8442 counted against 0.8170 modelled, a gap of 0.0272 ± 0.0051. An admissible assignment does not sit uniformly in its box, and this is the size of that.

A model and a count

The share of a unit's exchanges a tolerance box refuses can be modelled from the design or counted over the admissible set. They order the units the same way at a correlation of 0.81 and disagree about the level by 0.027.

blocked · Randomisation The probe a trial has is the probe a trial got. What the two-chain test says when it is run on the trial's own difference in arm means, over 24 outcomes on one fourteen-unit set. The set is in 2 mirror components — that is enumerated, not inferred — so every quiet reading is a miss. 29% of them are quiet. The reason is in the enumerated set rather than in the run: how far the two components are apart on a given probe ranges from 0.001 to 4.938 of a within-component spread across these outcomes, a factor of several thousand. Both covariate probes — chosen before any outcome existed, and replaceable if they had been quiet — report the split. An outcome cannot be chosen and cannot be replaced.

A probe nobody chose

On a set that is definitively in two pieces, seven of twenty-four outcomes report nothing at all. Every covariate probe reports it. What separates them is not accuracy — it is that one of them can be chosen and the other is what happened.

after · Randomisation A threshold in the tail is a threshold nothing balances. The share of a coin's imbalance in an indicator 1{x > c} that survives a rule which balances the covariate itself. The smooth curve is 1 − ρ² with ρ = φ(c)/√(p(1−p)), a closed form with no trial in it; the points are counted over 500 trials of 200 units at each threshold. At the median the two agree that about a third survives — the removed share is exactly 2/π — and by two standard deviations 86.9% survives. The closed form is exact in the limit and optimistic by a few points at this many units, because the rule balances the sample's mean rather than the population's.

A threshold in the tail

How much of a threshold's imbalance a balanced covariate removes is a correlation, and the correlation is a closed form. At the median it is exactly 2/π — the same 2/π a median split throws away — and two standard deviations out it is an eighth.

shape · Blocking The zero was a fact about independence. What a balancing rule handed every main effect of both covariates removes of a pure interaction, as the covariates are allowed to move together. At ρ = 0 it is exactly nothing — at machine precision, at any number of main effects — which is the independent-covariate result and is correct. It is not small anywhere else: the product of the two covariates loses 64.0% of itself by ρ = 0.5, because h₁h₁ = h₀ + √2·h₂ and Mehler pairs h₂ with h₂ at ρ². Four interactions are drawn and none of them keeps the zero.

A zero that was an assumption

A rule handed every main effect of both covariates removes exactly none of a pure interaction. That is true at machine precision, it is a fact about independence, and it dies as the square of the correlation.

joint · Criterion Stationary is not the same as convergent. How far each k-swap walk is from uniform after t steps, started at the least balanced admissible assignment of 410. Every one of these chains has a symmetric proposal and rejects by standing still, so every one of them is doubly stochastic and every one preserves the uniform distribution exactly. Only five of the six get there. Exchanging all six units of each arm is a single proposal — the complement — and the admissible set is closed under complement, so the walk takes it every time and oscillates between two assignments for ever: after 160 steps it has visited 1 state and sits 0.9976 from uniform. Its stationary distribution is a fact about the matrix; its limit does not exist.

Stationary is not convergent

A walk that exchanges every unit in each arm preserves the uniform distribution exactly and never gets near it. Every doubly stochastic matrix has the same stationary distribution; only some of them have a limit.

blocks · Randomisation Three readings, one verdict. Every tolerance of a fourteen-unit trial, with three comparisons on each. The first is between a chain started at an assignment and a chain started at its complement, which is what a mirror split separates. The second is between two chains started at the same assignment on different streams, which nothing about the set can separate — so a large reading there says the run is too short and not that the set is in pieces. The third is the same comparison on the statistic's absolute value, which is symmetric under the complement and therefore blind to the split by construction. The verdict is the pattern rather than any one line: the split is called only where the first fires and the other two do not, which happens at exactly the tolerances the enumeration calls disconnected — 0.8, 0.75, 0.7.

The statistic that changes sign

A test for an unreachable half needs a quantity that tells one half from the other. Every symmetric reading of a mirror pair is identical, and a magnitude is the natural thing to reach for.

reach · Randomisation Thinness stays put and reachability does not. The same balancing rule and the same tolerance at five trial sizes. The admitted share barely moves — one admissible assignment in 27, 30, 30, 20, 18 — because the acceptance rate of a rerandomisation is a fact about the basis rather than about the number of units. What does move is the number of single swaps available: 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, growing like a quarter of the square of the trial size. Filled marks are sizes whose admissible set falls into more than one piece. The set is in 4 pieces at 12 units, 2 at 14, and one piece from 16 upwards. The fourteen-unit result is a statement about fourteen units.

A defect that is about size

The admitted share of a rerandomisation barely moves with the number of units. The number of admissible neighbours grows like the square of it, and that is what decides whether the walk can go everywhere.

reach · Randomisation What each probe can see. How far apart the two components of the admissible set are on each probe, over the spread inside a component, on 100 designs whose set is enumerated and split. It is the population quantity a chain is trying to report. The separating direction itself reads 10.5646; the projected fourth power 5.0800, the design's own leverage 3.8362, the modelled active set 1.9529, the counted active set 2.0170 and a random direction in the same subspace 0.9422. The two active-set probes beat the random direction and lose to both of the earlier field's, which is the field's answer to the question that opened it.

A quantity that loses to a heuristic

Leverage is a heuristic about which units a balancing rule has most to say about. The constraint's active set is the thing the rule actually does. As a probe, the heuristic wins by 4.4 paired standard errors.

blocked · Randomisation The one thing a trial always reports is the one thing that survives. How wrong three p-values are when they are computed over the half of the admissible set a single walk can reach, rather than over all of it, at a fourteen-unit trial where the whole set can be enumerated. The two-sided p-value on the difference in arm means — the number a trial publishes — is wrong by exactly nothing, at every row, to machine precision. That is not luck: the two components are complement pairs and the difference in arm means is exactly negated by the complement, so the distribution of its absolute value is the same on both. A one-sided p-value on the same statistic is out by as much as 0.112, and the largest response observed in the treated arm — a safety reading rather than an effect, and the one statistic here that is not odd under the complement — by as much as 0.172. The defect survived because the commonest thing anybody computes is the one quantity it cannot touch.

Half a reference distribution

A walk that reaches half its admissible set reports the two-sided p-value exactly right, to the last digit, for ever. A one-sided one it puts on the wrong side of five per cent about once in thirty.

after · Reference What a rule reads, against what the outcome uses. The variance of the treatment estimate relative to a coin's, for four things a rule might balance against three shapes the outcome might have, over 350 trials of 200 units. The diagonal is the easy part — a rule that reads the function the outcome uses removes about half the variance. What the table is for is the off-diagonal: reading the covariate alone is worth nothing against a quadratic (0.755), and reading all three is worth nearly as much against every shape as the matching rule is against its own (0.532, 0.493, 0.514).

Three functions of one number

A rule that balances the covariate is exposed to every shape the outcome might have. A rule that balances three functions of it costs two points of variance against the shape the first was built for and takes the worst case from a coin's to about half of it.

shape · Criterion How long a walk has to be given. Every equal split of twelve units is enumerated, the 410 admissible ones are found, the transition matrix is built, and the distance from uniform is computed exactly at each step — no simulation anywhere. The walk is started at the least balanced admissible assignment, which is the state a rejection sampler is least likely to have handed it and the one a burn-in has to cover. It is 0.0849 away after twenty steps and 0.00008 after ninety. A real cost, and a small one, and naming it is what stops it being assumed to be zero.

Walking the admissible set

A rerandomisation test hunts for admissible assignments and throws away the rest. A walk visits them instead — and it is exactly uniform only because it stands still when a proposal fails, which is the step that looks like waste.

joint · Randomisation The crossing barely moves. Both methods' costs in one unit — assignments evaluated per usable draw — as the tolerance tightens. A hunt costs 1/p and rises without limit: from 2.22 at a tolerance of 1.2 to 357.14 at 0.18. A walk costs its autocorrelation time and barely moves. The two cross at a tolerance of 0.190 at one swap and 0.195 at eight — the whole family of proposal sizes crosses inside a band of about two hundredths, because where the crossing is, the large proposal has already lost its advantage. A multi-swap proposal is worth a factor of 5.65 in the regime where the walk should not be used at all.

Where the gain is, and where the decision is

A bigger proposal is worth a factor of six at a loose tolerance and nothing at a tight one. The tolerances where it helps are the ones where a hunt costs two evaluations a draw, and the crossing barely moves.

blocks · Assignment Where the set stops being one set. How many of the 3,432 equal splits of fourteen units a balancing rule admits, as the tolerance tightens, with the number of components single swaps leave it in. The set falls from 886 to 84 assignments, and somewhere in that fall it stops being connected: at 0.8 it is in 2 pieces and every assignment's complement is in the other one. Nothing about the rule changes at that point and nothing a chain reports changes either, which is the whole difficulty — the acceptance rate, the stationary distribution and the detailed balance are all in order on both sides of it.

Before the trial and after

The same diagnostic run at two moments answers two different questions. Before, a positive verdict changes the design. After, it changes which number gets reported — and only for the numbers the defect can reach.

after · Assignment One of them is mostly leverage. How much of the design's own leverage direction each active-set probe carries, once both are standardised and projected off the rule's span — which is what a probe is, so it is the comparison that matters. Over 189 designs the modelled active set agrees with leverage at |r| = 0.8359 ± 0.0114 and the counted one at 0.4239 ± 0.0216. So the modelled probe is largely leverage under another name and the counted one is genuinely a different direction — and the counted one is the worse probe, at 0.3854 of alignment against 0.4272. What the active set contains beyond leverage points away from where the set splits.

Counting it exactly does not help

If a modelled active set lost because the model was crude, the exact one would win. It is computed at a cost no trial can pay, and it is worse — so the approximation was never what was costing the probe.

blocked · Randomisation What the diagnostic says at two hundred units. The same test run 8 times on independent streams, at five tolerances of a two-hundred-unit trial, 40,000 steps each. At the loosest tolerance every run says the same thing — the walk reaches the whole set — and it keeps saying it as the set is thinned. Past a point the runs stop agreeing with each other: at the tightest tolerance here 6 of 8 report that the chains have not mixed and 2 report a split, which is a diagnostic disagreeing with itself rather than a property of the set. That disagreement is the honest answer at this size, and it is one nothing in this collection could give before: an enumeration stops at about twenty-four units.

The diagnostic at two hundred

Pointed at a trial size no enumeration reaches, the test gives three answers rather than one — and past a certain thinness it stops agreeing with itself, which is the honest reading and the one nothing could give before.

reach · Randomisation Where the constraints exhaust the randomisation. At 16 units there are 12,870 equal splits, so the ones meeting a stated tolerance can be counted rather than estimated. With each of the first k standardised imbalances required to be within 0.4 of a coin's own spread, the admissible count runs 3874 → 1006 → 314 → 0 → 0 → 0 — and at 4 functions there is no admissible assignment at all. The count is the number of distinct answers a randomisation test can give: at 3 functions its finest attainable p-value is 1 in 314. Balance improves with every constraint and the reference distribution shrinks with it, and the two run out at different rates.

When the constraints run out

Every function added to a basis is a constraint the assignment has to satisfy with the same units. At sixteen units and a stated tolerance the admissible assignments run 3,874, then 1,006, then 314, then none — and the count is exact, because the assignment space is finite.

basis · Allocation The pairing recovers most of it and passes nothing. How much of the separating direction each probe carries, over 100 designs of 14 units whose admissible set is enumerated and split in two. The four rows the pairing adds are the dominant direction of what each blocking matrix keeps past its degrees, and the cut that direction's signs induce. Counted, they read 0.5266 and 0.5258 against the counted per-unit share's 0.3854 — most of the gap between that share and the design's own leverage at 0.5395, closed. Modelled, they read 0.4274 and 0.4954 against 0.4272. Nothing built from the active set passes leverage, and the projected fourth power is still ahead of all of them at 0.6583.

A set of pairs, not a vector

The active set is a graph on the units, and every probe built from it so far has been its degree. Read as a graph it recovers 0.1326 of the alignment the summary lost — and draws level with leverage rather than passing it.

blocked · Randomisation The worst case against the number of functions, at four trial sizes. The largest share of a coin's imbalance the rule leaves in any of the four shapes, against how many functions it reads, at 50, 100, 200, 400 units. At 50 units: 103.5%, 38.6%, 37.2%, 37.0%, 39.8%, 41.7%. At 100 units: 105.9%, 37.8%, 38.9%, 30.3%, 27.0%, 24.6%. At 200 units: 95.9%, 44.2%, 42.8%, 32.9%, 28.4%, 11.7%. At 400 units: 108.5%, 41.8%, 41.3%, 32.1%, 26.1%, 5.8%. At fifty units every basis from two functions up leaves the worst shape between 37.0% and 41.7%; at four hundred, six functions leave it 5.8%.

How many functions a trial can hold

A rule that reads more functions of one covariate protects more shapes, and every function it reads costs the shapes it already held: the imbalance it leaves in a linear outcome falls like one over the trial size, with a constant that runs from about 3 for one function to about 16 for six. At fifty units that cost eats the protection, and the worst case over four shapes sits between 37% and 42% of a coin's from two functions to six. At four hundred it falls from 42% to 6%. By six functions the worst shape, at every size, is one the rule is reading.

shape · Criterion What the rule leaves of the product, against what exact balance would. For a rule holding the mean of each covariate, at a correlation of 0.5, the share of a coin's imbalance left in the product of the covariates: by the closed form for exact balance, and in trials of 100 and 400 units, on four marginals. normal: 100.0% exact, 98.6% at 100, 108.4% at 400; clearly skewed: 73.7% exact, 92.9% at 100, 91.5% at 400; strongly skewed: 70.3% exact, 93.9% at 100, 94.4% at 400; exponential: 71.5% exact, 84.1% at 100, 87.3% at 400.

A share at a hundred units

On a skewed covariate the closed form credits a rule that balances the means with removing 26% of the covariates' product and 52% of a square, shares that rest on symmetry having failed. A trial does not collect them. At a hundred units the rule removes 12% of the product and 37% of the square on the clearly skewed covariate, and at four hundred units barely more, because the shares live in the long tail and the tail is a handful of units. On the most skewed covariate the rule removes a fifth of the median split at a hundred units and nothing of it at four hundred: balancing the mean of such a covariate is balancing its largest few values.

skew · Criterion How many starts it takes to land in two pieces. Averaged over the split designs at each of three tolerances, the chance that k starting assignments drawn uniformly from the admissible set — what hunting for a start by rejection gives — do not all fall in one component, which is the most any diagnostic built on comparing chains from those starts can detect. At 0.6: 28% with 2, 47% with 4, 63% with 8, 77% with 16, 88% with 32, 95% with 64, 99% with 128. At 0.8: 12% with 2, 21% with 4, 32% with 8, 46% with 16, 62% with 32, 77% with 64, 90% with 128. At 1.0: 4% with 2, 8% with 4, 13% with 8, 21% with 16, 33% with 32, 47% with 64, 64% with 128. The median split design needs 21, 109 and 439 starts at the three tolerances to expose its split with probability 95%. With an even allocation the mirror makes two starts enough whenever the split is a unit.

After the mirror is gone

The two-chain diagnostic starts its second chain at the complement of the first's start, which exists only when the arms are equal. At five treated against ten, enumerated on two hundred designs, a split admissible set is one big piece and some crumbs — the median puts 97.3% of its assignments in one component — so two random starts see the split on 12% of split designs and 95% needs a median of 109 starts. Worse, the rule fixes units in a connected set all the time, so a unit that never moves stops being evidence. A hunt that forces such a unit into the other arm finds 41 of 70 splits; 29 carry no unit that marks them.

after · Randomisation Separation, how far against whether. The median separation each probe carries between the pieces of a split admissible set, over the 100 designs whose set is split. The share refused per unit carries 1.953; the refusal pairing's direction 3.103, and with the saturated pairs dropped 2.917. The depth pairing's direction carries 2.345, and each unit's mean depth 3.836 — exactly the leverage's. A random direction carries 0.942 and the projected fourth power 5.080.

How far, not whether

The blocking matrix records whether a tolerance box refuses an exchange. Dropping the pairs it refuses for certain changes nothing. Recording instead how far each exchange moves the balance vector turns the pairing into its degree plus a part that lies inside the rule's own span — and the degree is the design's leverage, exactly. The heuristic that beat every reading of what the rule blocks was the unclamped pairing's degree all along.

blocked · Randomisation Sixty-three subsets of six functions. The largest share of a coin's imbalance left in any of four shapes, measured on fresh trials, for each of the 63 subsets of six functions at 100 units. Subsets of one size spread widely: at four functions from 12.1% to 72.9%. The designer's order of addition gives 1: 94.4%, 2: 41.2%, 3: 39.0%, 4: 31.5%, 5: 27.0%, 6: 22.7%, against the best chosen subset of each size at 1: 83.6%, 2: 41.2%, 3: 25.4%, 4: 12.1%, 5: 16.2%, 6: 22.7%.

The list it was chosen on

Six functions of one covariate looked like 720 designs, one per order of addition. The rule reads a span and not a sequence, so they are 63, and at a hundred units the best four leave 12.1% of a coin's imbalance against the designer's first four at 31.5%. Those best four contain no cube and are, function for function, the four shapes the worst case was scored on. Read on six shapes it was not told about, the same design leaves the cube 77.0% of a coin's imbalance, and the designer's four, which lost by a factor of two and a half, leave it 28.1%.

shape · Criterion Four rules and what each leaves. The share of a coin's imbalance each rule leaves in the true value of each covariate, at 200 units and a reliability of 0.8. one reading of X: 21.4% in X and 100.1% in Z; two readings of X: 12.3% in X and 105.0% in Z; one reading each of X and Z: 21.7% in X and 21.5% in Z; two of X and one of Z: 13.4% in X and 22.0% in Z. The floors in closed form are 20.0% for one reading and 11.1% for two.

A second reading or a second covariate

A rule that balances a recording balances the truth only as far as the recording reaches, and a second reading of the covariate raises that reach. So does a first reading of something else. At a reliability of 0.8 the first reading of a second covariate does more once that covariate matters a third as much as the first, and the threshold is exact: the square root of (1 − λ)/(1 + λ), with no trial size in it. A protocol's list of measurements turns out to be a small knapsack, and it is rarely filled by reading anything twice.

continuous · Assignment Three regions at the box's own count. Across 24 sets of 16 units, on the sets where a box at a tolerance of 0.4 has any admissible assignment, the share of its own variance left in the worst of the k named functions at the box's count. the ellipse: 0.070, 0.134, 0.196, 0.194, 0.182. a sphere on the standardised functions: 0.062, 0.076, 0.091, 0.086, 0.080. the box: 0.062, 0.072, 0.081, 0.073, 0.069, at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 functions, on 24, 20, 9, 4, 4 of the sets. The box's mean admissible count is 1045, 354, 115, 32, 13.

A box with a count

The ellipse never runs out of assignments and holds the named functions loosely; the box holds them tightly and can come up empty. Dropping the ellipse's thin directions was meant to give both, and it does not: no cutoff comes within a third of the box. But the box's emptiness was never a property of the box. It belongs to a tolerance fixed in advance. Set the tolerance by a count instead, and at that count the region is the box, on every set of units, with nothing left to run out.

basis · Allocation The two shapes a scale decides between. The share of a coin's imbalance left at 400 units, by marginal and by what the rule reads. normal: linear 1.1% on values and 5.7% on ranks; split 37.4% on values and 25.4% on ranks. skew 2.26: linear 1.5% on values and 28.6% on ranks; split 61.9% on values and 25.0% on ranks. skew 4.75: linear 2.5% on values and 52.2% on ranks; split 95.5% on values and 25.1% on ranks. exponential: linear 1.4% on values and 28.1% on ranks; split 58.7% on values and 25.0% on ranks. A rank's hold on the split does not move with the marginal.

The covariate on its ranks

A skewed covariate spoils every parity argument a balancing rule relies on, and a rule that balances ranks instead of values looks like the way out, since a rank has the same uniform law on any marginal. The measurement says the skew really does belong to the scale for one kind of shape: a rank holds a median split at exactly a quarter of a coin's imbalance whatever the covariate. But it pays with a cap on any shape linear in the value, at nearly half a coin's imbalance on the strongest skew. And a rule holding values and median splits together holds both, beating the rank on the shape a rank gives up and matching it on the one it gains.

skew · Criterion

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Covariate balanceRandomisation testRerandomisationAssignment mechanismExact enumerationConnected componentReference distributionMarkov chain Monte CarloExperimental designMonte CarloTreatment effectBasis functions

All concepts