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

Interaction — where it appears

An effect of one factor that depends on the level of another, so that neither factor's effect can be stated on its own. For independent covariates a pure interaction is exactly orthogonal to every main effect, so a rule balancing all the main effects removes none of it.

Named by 50 essays across 15 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The expansion that never terminates. The Hermite coefficients of a median split, in magnitude, against the reference j to the power −3/4, anchored at the first one. Every even order is exactly zero because sign is an odd function, and every odd order is not, so no truncation is exact — where a polynomial of degree d is exact at any order past d. Summed, the tail past J falls like 1/√J: sixty orders still leave 6.6% of the variance outside. That statement is what made a cut dictionary's geometry unavailable in closed form, and it is a statement about the function against itself. What it is not is the accuracy of an inner product between two correlated variables, where every term past J carries a factor of ρ^m as well.

A cut is not a polynomial, and it does not have to be

A threshold's expansion never terminates, which is why a balancing dictionary's geometry was closed for powers and taken to draws for cut points. Conditioning on the second variable closes it for both.

splits · Blocking Two covariates make the dictionary an outer product. Four functions of each covariate, and everything a balancing rule may be handed. The margins are the 8 main effects and the block between them is the 16 interactions, which are 66.7% of the dictionary. Every inner product in it is closed form — ⟨f₁g₁, f₂g₂⟩ = ⟨f₁,f₂⟩⟨g₁,g₂⟩ when the covariates are independent — so nothing about the geometry gets harder. What gets harder is the counting: choosing k of 24 is C(24, k), which is 10,626 at four and 735,471 at eight.

A dictionary that is a product

Two covariates make what a balancing rule may read an outer product — eight main effects and sixteen interactions — and every inner product in it is still closed form. What a rule holding all eight main effects removes of a pure interaction is not small. It is zero.

product · Blocking The rule is parity, and it runs both ways. At a correlation of 0.5, four combinations of a dictionary and an outcome shape. The joint sign flip (X, Y) → (−X, −Y) leaves the bivariate normal alone at every correlation, so a function that changes sign under it is orthogonal to one that does not. A product of two odd functions is even; a product of an odd and an even one is odd. So an odd dictionary removes exactly none of the first and something of the second, and an even dictionary does the reverse — which it does, to machine precision, in both of the two rows that should be zero. This is one rule where there had been two: that a median split's square is constant, and that a polynomial dictionary contains the products a correlation generates.

A dictionary that is neither

A rule handed two median splits removes none of their interaction; a rule handed two covariates removes none of their product. Those were two results with two explanations, and they are one result with one — and finding it corrected the number underneath both.

dict · Criterion One margin rises; the other turns over. The two halves of the table's margin across the sweep: a lower-tail copula's own leak with a symmetric covariate, and a covariate skewed at 0.95 under a Gaussian copula. The marginal's leak rises at every step, from 3.727% to 36.056%. The copula's does not: it rises to 9.064% at a Spearman of 0.6 and falls to 8.219% by 0.7. It has to turn over, because at a rank correlation of one the two variables are a deterministic function of each other and there is no interaction left for a split to leak. So the margin of the table turns over before any cell in it does.

A margin that turns over

A skewed covariate's leak grows without limit as the dependence strengthens. A copula's own leak does not — it peaks at a rank correlation of 0.6 and falls. The margin of the table turns over before any cell in it does.

stronger · Adjustment One zero is arithmetic and one is a symmetry. What two balancing rules remove of the interaction they are aimed at, on five joint laws of the ranks matched at a Spearman correlation of 0.4, with a normal covariate throughout. A rule holding a median split of each covariate removes exactly nothing of the product of the splits under every one of them, including the two that are not symmetric under reflection — and the reason is not a symmetry at all: a centred median split takes the values ±½, so its square is a quarter identically, and the interaction is orthogonal to both main effects whatever the joint law is. A rule holding the mean of each removes exactly nothing under the three radially symmetric copulas and 7.71% under the two that are not. Bars at the floor are exact zeros; the axis cannot draw 9e-32.

A zero that is arithmetic

A median split's exact zero was explained by a symmetry of the latent normal. It holds under a Clayton copula, which has no such symmetry, because a centred median split squares to a quarter identically.

copula · Criterion One zero holds and one does not. Three rules, at a correlation of 0.5, against the skewness of the covariate. A rule balancing the mean of each covariate removes exactly nothing of their product when the marginal is symmetric — including the heavy-tailed symmetric one at skewness zero, which is what says the guarantee needs symmetry rather than normality — and removes up to 29.7% when it is not. A rule balancing a median split of each removes exactly nothing of the product of the splits under every marginal here, to 1e-30: both sides are functions of the sign of the latent normal, and a monotone transformation moves neither. A rule balancing a threshold at a value on the covariate's own scale removes between 4.9% and 22.5% — it never had a zero to lose, under any marginal at all.

A zero that rests on a symmetry

A balancing rule removes exactly none of an interaction between two odd functions, at every correlation. The argument needs the joint sign flip to preserve the law, and no real covariate is symmetric about anything.

skew · Criterion What each rule leaves behind, at 120 patients. Four allocation rules over the same cohorts and the same seeds, each scored on three imbalances: the number of patients in each arm, the worst of the nine factor levels, and the worst of the 24 cells of the cross-classification. No rule holds all three. Permuted blocks hold the totals exactly and leave the margins near a coin's. Blocks inside every cell hold the cells and let the totals drift, because 24 part-filled blocks do not have to end level. Minimisation holds the margins and the totals and is at 83% of a coin's cell imbalance. Each of the three columns is somebody's definition of a balanced trial.

Balancing what is known in advance

Four allocation rules, three definitions of balance, and no rule that holds more than one of them. Minimisation keeps the worst factor margin near three patients whether the trial has forty or six hundred and forty — and lets the imbalance in the cross-classified cells climb to 86% of a coin's, because the cells are not what it is watching.

covadapt · Assignment The fourth-order expectation, by two routes. Every inner product in an eight-term slice of the dictionary at ρ = 0.5, computed from the linearisation and Mehler's formula and counted from two hundred thousand draws of a correlated pair. The entries that matter are the ones off the main effects: ⟨f(X)u(Y), g(X)v(Y)⟩ is a fourth-order expectation, which the independent-covariate field could not write down. The worst departure is 1.99 standard errors over 36 pairs, measured in each pair's own error because the entries differ in size by two orders of magnitude.

The fourth moment that was missing

Mehler's formula makes the main effects exact at any correlation and stops there, because the interactions need an expectation of four Hermite functions rather than two. A linearisation turns the four into two, and the whole geometry becomes closed again.

joint · Blocking Where one rule becomes three. Every arrival in 200 simulated trials is put to all three scores, and the picture is how often they would send that patient to different arms. The range and the pairwise sum are the same rule at two arms and at three — for sorted counts the pairwise sum is twice the range, so the arm that minimises one minimises the other — and they part company at four, where the pairwise sum is 3(d − a) + (c − b) and the range still sees only d − a. The variance disagrees with both from two arms onwards, on 5.4% of arrivals at two and 27.0% at five, because the scores are summed over 3 factors and a sum of squares does not order the candidates the way a sum of absolute values does. All three are called minimisation.

Three arms and three scores

Minimisation balances a trial by keeping the arms' counts even inside every prognostic factor. With two arms there is one way to measure how uneven two counts are. With three there are several, they are all called minimisation, and they send different patients to different arms.

multiarm · Assignment What a mean split leaves, with both halves varying. The share of a mean split's interaction that survives the rule balancing it, at every copula and every marginal, matched at a Spearman correlation of 0.40. The three radially symmetric copulas leave exactly nothing with a symmetric covariate and rise steeply with the skew. The two asymmetric ones start at 7.707% and go opposite ways: the lower-tail copula falls to 0.002% at a skewness of 0.95 — the two failures cancel almost exactly, and a guarantee both fields report as broken is restored — while the upper-tail one climbs to 40.288%. And the heavy-tailed symmetric covariate, which leaks exactly nothing on its own, doubles what the asymmetric copulas leak: 14.229% against 7.707%.

Two failures that cancel

A mildly skewed covariate under a lower-tail copula leaks 0.002% of an interaction where each failure alone leaks eight and seven per cent. Turn the copula over and the same pair compounds.

compound · Adjustment Where the two kinds of cut sit. Six covariates, each a monotone transformation of the same latent normal. The vertical line at zero is where every median split sits, on every one of them, because a monotone map preserves order: the median of the covariate is the image of the median of the latent normal. The marks on the curves are where a threshold at 1 on the covariate's scale falls — 1.000, 0.881, 0.875, 0.783, 0.713, 0.337 — and none of them is at zero. That is the whole of the difference. A function of the sign of the latent normal is odd, and a rule made of odd functions removes exactly nothing of an interaction between two of them; a threshold anywhere else is neither odd nor even and removes something.

A split survives what a mean does not

The two things every trial balances come apart on a skewed covariate. A median split is a function of the sign of the latent normal whatever the marginal is; a mean is not, and its exact zero is gone at a skewness of one.

skew · Criterion The same copula, turned over. A Clayton copula and its reflection, at the same Spearman correlation of 0.40 and the same Kendall tau of 0.275, against the covariate's marginal. With a symmetric covariate the two are the same number to nine decimals — 7.707% apiece — because the leak then depends on how much asymmetry the copula has and not on which way it points. Skew the covariate and they come apart: at a skewness of 2.26 the lower-tail copula leaves 3.431% and the upper-tail one 36.213%, a factor of 10.6. Both halves of the dependence are asymmetries and an asymmetry has a direction; a lower-tail copula concentrates the dependence where a right-skewed marginal is compressed and the two distortions partly undo each other, and an upper-tail one concentrates it where the marginal is stretched.

A symmetry that was not enough

A heavy-tailed symmetric covariate has a skewness of zero and leaks exactly nothing under three copulas. Under the two asymmetric ones it doubles the leak, from 7.707% to 14.229%.

compound · Adjustment 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 The mean's zero is the copula's symmetry. Five copulas, each at a Spearman rank correlation of 0.4, with a normal covariate throughout — so nothing here is about the marginal, which is the whole of the earlier field. Horizontally: how far the copula's density is from its own reflection through the centre of the unit square, measured rather than read off the family's name. Vertically: what a rule balancing the mean of each covariate removes of their product. The three copulas at zero on the horizontal axis remove exactly nothing, to thirty decimal places. The two that are not symmetric remove 7.71%. A guarantee that held for six marginals turns out to have needed something the marginals could not have told anybody about.

The symmetry the marginals could not show

A mean's interaction zero needs the covariate to be symmetric and the copula to be symmetric under reflection. Six marginals could only ever test one of those, and the other is broken by the commonest kind of dependence there is.

copula · Criterion What the worst case is worth, one function at a time. The smallest share each dictionary removes, over seven outcome shapes, at a correlation of 0.5. A rule balancing the mean of each covariate has a worst case of exactly zero — against the square, and against both products. Adding a median split to it, which is the second thing every trial balances, leaves the worst case at exactly zero, because a median split is odd and so is a mean. Adding the square instead moves it to 6.8%, and the extra functions after that move it to 7.4%. The worst case is decided by which parities the dictionary contains rather than by how many functions are in it.

What the extra function buys

A rule balancing the mean of each covariate has a worst case of exactly zero. Adding the median split — the other thing every trial balances — leaves it at exactly zero, and one square moves it.

dict · Criterion One curve is a binomial coefficient and the other is a line. The number of subsets a maximin over this dictionary would have to score, against the number the exchange algorithm actually scores. At three functions the walk is 2,024 subsets and is the honest answer; at eight it is 735,471 and the exchange algorithm has looked at 421. The warrant for the second curve is the four sizes where both exist and agree, which is a weak warrant — it says the algorithm has not yet been wrong, not that it cannot be — and it is the only one available past the point the first curve leaves the page.

Where the enumeration stops

A maximin over an eight-function dictionary is a walk over seventy subsets. Over twenty-four it is 735,471 at eight functions, and the exchange algorithm that replaces the walk scores 421. What licenses the second curve is four sizes where both exist and agree, which is a weaker warrant than it looks.

product · Optimum A near-perfect cancellation, at one correlation. A covariate skewed at 0.75 under a lower-tail copula, at each of 7 rank correlations. The earlier field measures this cell at a Spearman of 0.4 and reads 0.002% where adding the two halves' own leaks gives 16.579% — a cancellation so near exact that it is that field's headline. Across the sweep the same cell reads 0.0084%, 0.0182%, 0.0097%, 0.0015%, 0.0864%, 0.4693%, 1.5327%. Its smallest value is at 0.4, in the interior, and by 0.7 it is 1007.40 times larger. The near-zero is where two curves cross, and they cross beside the one correlation that was measured.

The zero that was a crossing

A cell that leaks 0.002% where adding its two halves gives 16.6% is a field's headline. On a finer grid it passes through zero at a rank correlation of 0.38 — two hundredths from where it was measured.

stronger · Adjustment Three copulas that break nothing, and a factor of two between them. The three radially symmetric copulas, at a matched Spearman correlation of 0.40, against the covariate's marginal. All three leave exactly nothing with a symmetric covariate — that is the guarantee, and it holds to twenty decimal places. What they do to a skewed covariate is not the same at all: at a skewness of 2.26 a Frank copula leaves 12.118% where a Gaussian leaves 21.539% and a t on four degrees of freedom leaves 23.640%. A factor of 2.0 between two copulas that are both symmetric, both matched on rank correlation, and both harmless on their own. So the copula matters to the marginal's leak without breaking any symmetry of its own, which is a milder version of the same finding and applies to every trial rather than to the asymmetric ones.

A copula that halves a marginal

Three copulas break nothing on their own and put a factor of two between the same skewed covariate's leaks — 12.118% under a Frank against 23.640% under a t, at the same rank correlation.

compound · Adjustment Four cells change their answer. The four cells of the twenty whose excess changes sign as the dependence strengthens, over 7 recalibrations. Above the line the two failures compound — the cell leaks more than adding the copula's own leak and the marginal's — and below it they cancel. All four start above and end below, and all four are at the two most skewed covariates: skew 0.90 under heavy-tailed, skew 0.95 under heavy-tailed, skew 0.90 under upper tail, skew 0.95 under upper tail. Whether two failures of a dependence compound or cancel is therefore not a property of the pair. It is a property of the pair at a strength of dependence, and a fifth of the table changes its answer inside the range measured here.

An answer that changes

Eleven of twenty cells cancel and nine compound, at one rank correlation. Sweep the correlation and four of the twenty change sides — all four from compounding to cancelling, all four at the most skewed covariates.

stronger · Adjustment Two factors that interact — where each design looks. The true response at the four corners is -10, 6, 4, 0. One factor at a time visits three of them, sees that raising either factor alone helps, and recommends raising both — a corner it never ran, and one that is worse than either single change. It picks the best corner 0.0% of the time against the factorial design's 99.4%, on the same number of runs.

One factor at a time

Changing one thing per experiment estimates each effect from two conditions; changing everything at once estimates each from every run. The ratio is (k+1)/2 and it is exact — and when two factors interact, the one-at-a-time design recommends a setting it never tried.

design · Factorial A cut at a quantile, and a cut at a value. Two rules that read identically in a protocol. One splits each covariate at its median; the other splits it at 1 on the covariate's own scale — a dose, a temperature, a clinical threshold. At a correlation of 0.5 the first removes exactly nothing of the interaction between its own two splits, under every marginal here, because a median split is a function of the sign of the latent normal whatever the marginal is. The second removes what the bars show, and it does so on a normal covariate too: the threshold sits at 1.000 on the latent scale rather than at zero, so it is 59.4% odd and 40.6% even. The exact zero was never about the cut; it was about the cut being at the median.

The cut that is not a quantile

A protocol that says split the covariate at a threshold and one that says split it at the median read the same and are different rules. One has an exact guarantee under every marginal and the other has none under any.

skew · Criterion The guarantee that survives a correlation, and the one that does not. What a balancing rule handed both main effects removes of the pure interaction between them, as the covariates become dependent. For median splits it is exactly zero at every correlation, because sign(x)² = 1: the interaction sign(X)sign(Y) is orthogonal to sign(X) and to sign(Y) whatever ρ is. For the product of the raw covariates it is 4ρ²/(1+ρ²)² — 64.00% by ρ = 0.5, rising to all of it at perfect correlation. A cut away from the median sits between them and is not small: 23.01% at a cut of one. The zero is not a fact about interactions. It is a fact about a dictionary whose functions square to a constant, which a polynomial one does not.

The zero that survives a cut

A rule holding both main effects removes half of a pure interaction between correlated powers and exactly none between correlated median splits. The guarantee that a correlation destroyed was never about interactions.

splits · Criterion Which tail the threshold is in. What a rule balancing a threshold at 1 on each covariate's own scale removes of the interaction between the two thresholds, on five copulas matched at a Spearman rank correlation of 0.4 with a normal covariate throughout. This rule never had a zero to lose — the earlier field establishes that under every marginal — so what is left is a size, and the size depends on where the dependence lives. A Clayton copula, whose density piles up in the lower tail, leaves 5.33%; the same copula turned over, so that it piles up in the upper tail where the threshold is, leaves 33.36%. Same rank correlation, same Kendall tau, same marginal, same threshold: 6.26 times the leak, decided by which end of the distribution the dependence and the cut are both in.

Which tail the cut sits in

The same copula and its reflection have the same rank correlation, the same Kendall tau and the same marginals. A balancing rule holding a threshold at a dose leaves 5.33% under one and 33.36% under the other.

copula · Criterion Two studies of the same effect, z statistics with mean 1.96: where one is significant and the other is not. Five hundred pairs. With the true effect identical in both, exactly one of the two is significant in 50.0% of pairs; among those, the difference between the two is significant in 9.7%. The dashed lines mark 1.96 on each axis; the diagonal lines mark a significant difference.

Significant in one, not in the other

Two studies of exactly the same effect, each with 50% power, disagree about significance half the time — and when they do, the test of the difference between them is significant in 9.75% of cases. A p of 0.01 beside a p of 0.20 is a difference with p = 0.36. Among four subgroups sharing one effect, at least one significant and one not happens 87.5% of the time, and the test that would tell a real difference apart needs four times the sample the effect itself needed.

alongside · Repetition A guarantee that stops being a number. The worst case of each dictionary over six outcome shapes, at a correlation of 0.5, against the skewness of the covariate. Under a symmetric marginal every rule made of odd functions has a worst case of exactly zero, and the rule holding a mean and a median split of each covariate — the two things every trial balances — is one of them. Under skew that zero becomes 0.74%, 1.83%, 2.24%, 2.49%: small numbers, each of which depends on a marginal nobody stated. The guarantee has not improved by becoming positive. It has stopped being a guarantee, because it can no longer be written down without the covariate's distribution in it.

Balancing a skewed covariate

The worst case of the rule every trial runs goes from exactly zero to somewhere between a quarter of a per cent and two and a half. Which is small, and is a number that cannot be stated without the covariate's distribution in it.

skew · Criterion The one zero neither half of the dependence can touch. A median split's interaction leak at all 30 combinations of copula and marginal, on a log scale. Every one is under 10⁻¹⁶ and the largest is 1.74e-20, which is the quadrature's own noise rather than a leak. The reason is arithmetic and it is short: a centred median split takes the values ±½, so its square is a quarter identically — for every unit, on every draw, whatever the covariate's scale is and whatever joint law the ranks have. The interaction is then orthogonal to both main effects by construction, and there is nothing for either half of the dependence to break. Both of the fields this one joins report this zero holding under their own variation; running both variations at once is what establishes that it is not two coincidences.

The zero that survives both

A median split's interaction leak is under 10⁻¹⁶ at all thirty combinations of copula and marginal. It is the only guarantee in the collection that neither half of the dependence can touch.

compound · Adjustment Where two verdicts disagree, across the true effects of two studies, beside where the test of their difference finds it. The shading is the chance that exactly one of two independent studies is significant, over the plane of their true z means. It is highest on a cross centred where either mean is 1.96 and lowest in the corner where both are large, whatever the difference between them. The difference test's power is constant along lines parallel to the diagonal: 50% on the inner pair and 80% on the outer. Two studies at means 8 and 4 — one effect half the other — split 2.1% of the time, and the difference test finds the halving 80.7% of the time.

The verdicts watch the threshold, not the gap

Two studies whose effects really differ are read through their verdicts as often as through their difference. Halves of an 80%-power study whose effects differ by the whole effect split 72.87% of the time against 49.99% when they do not — a split is never more than 1.86 times as likely under any difference up to twice the effect. And a halving of the effect in two large studies leaves both significant 97.93% of the time, while the test of the difference finds it 80.74%.

alongside · Repetition A cut walked from the median into each tail. What a rule balancing a threshold on each of two normal covariates removes of the interaction between the two thresholds, with the cut moved from the 1st percentile to the 99th, on five copulas at a Spearman rank correlation of 0.4. Every copula reads exactly zero at the median. The three radially symmetric copulas are mirror images about it: the Gaussian peaks at 19.49% near the 95th percentile and is down to 13.44% at the 99th; the Frank peaks at 13.22% near the 85th and falls to 2.06%; the t is still near its highest, 37.45%, at the 99th. The Clayton climbs to 56.37% at the 1st percentile, in the tail its dependence is in, and never passes 5.39% in the other; its reflection is the same curve turned round.

A cut walked into the tail

Move a balancing rule's threshold off the median and the interaction it leaks rises from exactly zero — and then either turns back to nothing or climbs to a ceiling, depending on one property of the dependence. With both covariates cut, the whole regression collapses to two probabilities, and far out it settles on 2λ/(1 + λ) of the tail-dependence coefficient: 57.25% under a Clayton, 35.57% under a t, and zero under a Gaussian or a Frank however strongly the covariates are related.

copula · Criterion The table swept along the covariate instead. What a rule holding a mean of each covariate fails to remove of their interaction, at each of 4 copulas, as the covariate is skewed further and the rank correlation is held at 0.4. The sweep runs from a symmetric covariate at g = 0 to a skewness of 11.16, and the three settings the earlier table names — g = 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 — are on it, where this sweep reproduces that table to the last digit. Every row rises and then falls: the lower-tail copula from 7.707% through 0.0015% and back to 5.587%, the upper-tail one to a maximum of 36.213%. So the quantity a trial is exposed to is not monotone in how skewed its covariate is.

The other dial

The table is swept along the strength of the dependence and never along the shape of the covariate. Swept along the shape at a fixed correlation, the same two copulas cross, the same way — and the near-zero cell turns out to be a minimum in both directions at once.

stronger · Adjustment What a 8-run fraction of 4 factors confounds. The defining relation is I = ABCD, so the resolution is 4. A is estimated as A + BCD; B is estimated as B + ACD; C is estimated as C + ABD; D is estimated as D + ABC. Each of those is an identity about the design rather than an approximation about the data.

The word a fraction costs

A half fraction estimates each main effect as an exact sum of that effect and everything it is confounded with — no error term, no sample-size argument. With every interaction at 0.8 the design reports a true effect of −1 as −0.20, and the design cannot test the assumption that makes the number mean anything.

design · Factorial A whole trial's z against a subgroup's, the subgroup 20% of it with the same effect as the rest. Five hundred pairs, correlated at 0.447 — the square root of its share — because the subgroup is part of the whole. The whole trial is significant and the subgroup is not in 57.5% of trials; the subgroup differs significantly from the rest in 5.0%. The dashed lines mark 1.96 on each axis and the slanted lines mark a significant difference between the subgroup and the rest.

A subgroup inside its own trial

A trial with 80% power, significant overall and not in the fifth of it that is women, has told the reader almost nothing about women: that pattern turns up 57.45% of the time when women have the full effect and 58.26% when they have none. The subgroup is part of the whole, so the two verdicts are correlated, and the one test that answers the question — the subgroup against everyone else — can be recovered from the two printed intervals and nothing more.

alongside · Repetition A median split of a measured scale. The share of the interaction a rule balancing a split above the median of each covariate removes, when the covariate is measured on k levels of a symmetric binomial, on five copulas at a Spearman rank correlation of 0.4. With an even number of levels nothing sits on the median and the split is exactly balanced: the rule removes nothing, as for a continuous covariate. With an odd number, 3 levels (50.00% on the median): Gaussian 10.44%, Clayton 4.91%, its reflection 18.44%; 5 levels (37.50% on the median): Gaussian 6.39%, Clayton 3.69%, its reflection 10.06%; 7 levels (31.25% on the median): Gaussian 4.58%, Clayton 2.91%, its reflection 6.77%; 9 levels (27.34% on the median): Gaussian 3.57%, Clayton 2.41%, its reflection 5.05%; 11 levels (24.61% on the median): Gaussian 2.92%, Clayton 2.05%, its reflection 4.01%; 15 levels (20.95% on the median): Gaussian 2.15%, Clayton 1.59%, its reflection 2.82%; 21 levels (17.62% on the median): Gaussian 1.53%, Clayton 1.19%, its reflection 1.93%; 31 levels (14.45% on the median): Gaussian 1.04%, Clayton 0.85%, its reflection 1.26%.

A median with ties

The median split's interaction zero survives every marginal and every copula, because a split that is on for exactly half the units squares to a constant. A covariate measured on a few levels cannot be split exactly in half: on a five-point scale three in eight units sit on the median, and a rule balancing 'above the median' removes 6.39% of the interaction under a Gaussian copula and 10.06% under one of the two Claytons. The size is set by the share of units on the median, which is the formula's own factor. And a fair coin for the tied units restores the zero exactly, on every copula.

compound · Adjustment A threshold read along the skew. What a rule balancing a threshold at the value 1 on each covariate's own scale removes of the interaction between the thresholds, against the covariate's skewness, on five copulas at a Spearman rank correlation of 0.4. Gaussian: 16.41% with no skew, 10.07% at a skewness of 11.16; t on four: 22.18% with no skew, 12.11% at a skewness of 11.16; Frank: 13.19% with no skew, 10.14% at a skewness of 11.16; Clayton: 5.33% with no skew, 4.82% at a skewness of 11.16; Clayton turned over: 33.34% with no skew, 17.61% at a skewness of 11.16. Every leak falls, because the value moves towards the median.

Where the skew puts a threshold

The field read the mean-balancing rule along a sequence of skewness and left the threshold rule — a cut at a fixed value on the covariate's own scale — unread. Read, it turns out to be no new curve. Skewing the scale moves the value 1 from the 84th percentile of the latent covariate to the 74th, and the rule's leak is the copula field's cut sweep read at that quantile: it falls on every copula, from 16.41% to 10.07% under a Gaussian. Whether skew and dependence compound or cancel is then a fact about the slope of each copula's curve, and unlike the mean rule's, no cell changes its answer along the sequence.

stronger · Adjustment A basis drawn rather than chosen. The share of the worst of seven shapes a balancing rule removes, over two covariates and a dictionary of twenty-four functions, for the best fixed basis of each size (lower line) and for a basis drawn at random from the least favourable mixture (upper line), at one to four functions. The fixed basis guarantees 0.0000, 0.0000, 0.4244, 0.6366: nothing at one function or two, because two of the shapes are pure interactions and two of them are main effects of different covariates, and no one or two functions touch all of them. The drawn basis guarantees 0.2042, 0.4084, 0.6133, 0.7920 in expectation over the draw — about a fifth of a shape for every function up to three. The marks above the upper line are the best reply to nature's mixture, 0.2051, 0.4098, 0.6142, 0.7931: the game's value lies between the two.

A basis drawn rather than chosen

On two covariates no fixed basis of one or two functions protects every shape an outcome might have — its worst case is exactly zero. Draw the basis at random from the right mixture and the guarantee is a fifth of a shape for every function. The price is per trial — at three functions, two draws in five leave one shape wholly unprotected.

product · Optimum The best worst cases among twenty-eight pairs. Every pair of two functions from eight — the covariate, its square, cube and fourth power, and cuts at −1, 0, 1 and 2 — held on both covariates, ranked by the smallest share it removes over seven outcome shapes at a correlation of 0.5. The best is the square and a cut at 1 at 7.00%; the mean and the square reach 6.84%. For almost every pair the shape holding the floor is the product of two median splits, which no pair removes more than a small part of.

Two functions a covariate

Every constraint costs admissible assignments at the same rate, so the decision a trial faces is a budget: which two functions of each covariate. Over twenty-eight pairs the worst case never picks the mean. At a correlation of a half it picks the square with a cut at one, beating the mean and the square by sixteen hundredths of a point on a floor held by a shape no pair removes a tenth of — and giving up 41% of a linear outcome to do it. Over the 127 lists of shapes a designer could write, twenty-three different pairs are best somewhere.

dict · Criterion What exact balance on the main effects removes of the interaction, in a sample. The share of the interaction's in-sample variance explained by the eight main effects — what exact balance on them would remove — averaged over 4,000 samples, at 25, 50, 100, 200, 400 units and correlations of 0, 0.3, 0.5. At 0, whose closed form is 0.0%: 62.1%, 40.3%, 24.5%, 14.9%, 8.4%. At 0.3, whose closed form is 30.3%: 69.8%, 54.2%, 44.4%, 38.4%, 34.8%. At 0.5, whose closed form is 64.0%: 80.7%, 73.1%, 69.2%, 66.8%, 65.4%.

The share a sample removes

A rule balancing eight main effects of two independent covariates removes exactly none of their interaction — in the population. A trial is a sample, and in a sample of a hundred units exact balance on the same eight functions removes 24% of the interaction's variance on average, between 10% and 42% from one trial to the next. At twenty-five units it removes 62%. The zero is the centre of nothing: it is the limit the in-sample share falls towards, by about two fifths with every doubling of the trial, carried there by an interaction whose spread grows with the very functions it is regressed on. At a correlation of a half the closed form says 64%; a trial of a hundred gets 69% on average and anything from 53% to 83%.

joint · 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 A leak read off a cohort, at two cuts. The threshold rule's leak as a cohort of 1,000 units estimates it from its own two-by-two table: the bar is the middle eighty per cent of 600 cohorts' plug-in estimates, the open circle their median and the stroke the true leak, for five copulas at a Spearman rank correlation of 0.4. At the 90th percentile the estimate is centred on the truth and its middle eighty per cent spans about fourteen points: Gaussian 12.8% to 26.4% around 19.2%, t on four 21.5% to 35.7% around 28.9%, Frank 5.4% to 18.7% around 12.2%, Clayton 0.8% to 9.6% around 4.4%, Clayton turned over 35.9% to 49.5% around 43.1%. At the 99th it is not centred on anything: Gaussian 13.1% to 100.0% around 13.7%, t on four 17.5% to 72.9% around 37.4%, Frank 14.4% to 100.0% around 2.2%, Clayton 16.1% to 100.0% around 0.6%, Clayton turned over 37.0% to 75.7% around 56.3%, because on three of the five copulas between two cohorts in five and four in five have nobody past both cuts.

A leak read off a two-by-two table

The share of an interaction a threshold-balancing rule leaves alone needs one number from the data: how often a unit past the cut on one covariate is past it on the other. A cohort of a thousand estimates it to within a dozen points at the 90th percentile. At the 99th most cohorts have an empty cell in their table, and every one of those reads a leak of exactly one hundred per cent — a reading the bootstrap then confirms with an interval of zero width.

copula · Criterion How often a trial whose effect is the same for everyone shows a significant subgroup interaction, by the size of its subgroup table. Four hundred patients, 80% power overall, characteristics whose latents correlate 0 (their split indicators 0.000). Some interaction test reaches 5% in 5.10% at 1, 9.13% at 2, 17.43% at 4, 34.63% at 8, 47.13% at 12, 56.23% at 16; the equicorrelated-normal integral gives 5.00%, 9.75%, 18.55%, 33.66%, 45.96%, 55.99%. A Bonferroni reading of the eight holds 5.57%.

Sixteen subgroups and one effect

A trial of four hundred with 80% power tabulates its result by eight binary characteristics — sixteen subgroups — and the treatment's effect is the same for every patient. Among trials significant overall, 93.5% report at least one subgroup where it is not, and the median one reports seven. Some subgroup-against-the-rest interaction reaches 5% in 34.6% of trials — eight independent chances — and when the characteristics overlap as two age thresholds do, 18.6%, about four. The effective count is set by the correlation between the characteristics' split indicators, (2/π) arcsin of their latent correlation, and a Bonferroni reading of the eight holds the rate at 5% whatever the overlap.

alongside · Repetition Seven products of three splits. The correlation of every product of three centred median splits with every other, at a Spearman rank correlation of 0.4 between each pair of covariates. Under a Gaussian copula a main effect correlates with the other mains and with the triple (0.273), and with no pair at all, because the third moment is 0.000. Under a Frank copula, whose pairs are radially symmetric, the third moment is 0.078 and every other cell fills in: a main correlates 0.082 with the pair it is not in. In both panels a main is exactly uncorrelated with a pair it belongs to, which is the known zero.

The zero that needed two

A rule balancing two median splits removes nothing of their interaction, on every copula, because a centred split squares to a constant. Add a third covariate and the same arithmetic stops protecting the thing it looked as if it protected. The product of three splits is not orthogonal to the mains: at a rank correlation of 0.4 a rule on the mains removes 14.47% of it under a Gaussian copula. And the symmetry that decides the rest belongs to the triple rather than the pair, so Frank's copula, whose pairs are radially symmetric, leaks where Clayton's, whose pairs are not, barely does.

compound · Adjustment A cut on each covariate, every pair of them. The share of the product of two threshold indicators that a rule balancing the two indicators removes, in per cent, at a Spearman rank correlation of 0.4, for cuts at the fifth to the ninety-fifth percentile on each covariate. On the Gaussian the far corner, a cut at the 5th percentile on one and the 95th on the other, is 54.8% against 19.5% with both at the 95th. On the t copula it is 1.1% against 34.5%. Both surfaces have their only zero at the double median and leave the diagonal lower in places: moving one Gaussian cut from the 80th to the 70th lowers the share from 14.0% to 12.1%.

A cut on each side

Every table of the threshold's leak put one quantile on both covariates, which is the diagonal of a surface nobody had drawn. Off the diagonal the copulas swap places: a cut at the 5th percentile on one covariate and the 95th on the other removes 54.8% of the interaction under a Gaussian copula and 1.1% under a t copula, the reverse of their order at the near corner. Walked further out, the far corner has two opposite limits, and which one a Gaussian reaches is decided by whether its correlation is above or below exactly one third.

stronger · Adjustment Coverage as the effect moves with the level. Coverage on ten and two in every block, with the level between blocks moving at a spread of 0.5 and the effect moving with it at each slope, 4000 runs each. At -3: refusing the sums 94.4%, pooling them 88.8%, residualised 97.0%; At -2.5: refusing the sums 94.3%, pooling them 88.9%, residualised 95.6%; At -2: refusing the sums 94.9%, pooling them 90.0%, residualised 93.8%; At -1.5: refusing the sums 95.1%, pooling them 91.7%, residualised 92.7%; At -1: refusing the sums 95.1%, pooling them 94.8%, residualised 94.0%; At -0.5: refusing the sums 95.1%, pooling them 97.2%, residualised 97.7%; At 0: refusing the sums 95.0%, pooling them 98.8%, residualised 99.6%; At 0.5: refusing the sums 95.0%, pooling them 99.4%, residualised 99.9%; At 1: refusing the sums 95.0%, pooling them 99.4%, residualised 99.9%.

The sums under a moving level

A trial's block sums are a free second estimate of its variance only while they see what the differences see, and a level that moves between blocks with an effect moving against it breaks that: pooled raw at a ceiling they cover 87.6% to 90.0%. Residualising the sums on an unbalanced design does not make them safe. It moves the failure. On ten and two, 90.0% at the ceiling becomes 93.8%, the trough leaves for a slope of about −1.5, and over the rest of the range the same estimate over-covers, at 99.9% on an interval half as wide again as it needs to be.

contrast · Blocking What the interval covers as the effect stops being one number. Coverage at 120 units under minimisation, 600 trials and 199 re-run allocations each, as the effect's slope on the prognosis rises from 0 to 1.5. the inverted test, unadjusted, for the population's mean: 96.7%, 96.2%, 95.7%, 95.7%, 94.8%. the same, for the sample's mean: 96.7%, 96.0%, 96.2%, 97.3%, 98.3%. the inverted test, adjusted, for the population's mean: 96.5%, 95.5%, 95.0%, 95.3%, 96.0%. the same, for the sample's mean: 96.5%, 95.7%, 96.5%, 98.0%, 99.5%. the regression with an interaction, for the population's mean: 96.2%, 95.5%, 94.0%, 91.0%, 84.0%. the same, for the sample's mean: 96.2%, 95.8%, 96.2%, 95.7%, 95.2%.

An effect that is not one number

A randomisation test becomes an interval for the effect by testing every constant effect in turn, so when the effect grows with the prognosis every hypothesis it tests is false. It does not fall apart. It covers the population's mean effect within a point of its level at every slope measured, and its width grows by exactly what the sample's own composition adds. A regression that models the interaction stays narrow at 0.72, covers the sample's mean at 95%, and covers the population's at 84%. The extra width was never a defect. It was the difference between two questions.

covadapt · Assignment What a floor costs a drawn basis. The expected guarantee of a basis drawn from a mixture restricted to bases that each remove at least a stated share of every shape, solved at each distinct floor. 2 functions, of 276 bases: 40.8% at a floor of 0.0%; the best fixed basis floors at 0.0%. 3 functions, of 2024 bases: 61.3% at a floor of 0.0%, 50.0% at a floor of 31.8%, 50.0% at a floor of 34.7%, 49.7% at a floor of 40.5%, 42.4% at a floor of 42.4%; the best fixed basis floors at 42.4%. 4 functions, of 10626 bases: 79.2% at a floor of 0.0%, 77.1% at a floor of 31.8%, 77.1% at a floor of 34.7%, 77.1% at a floor of 35.1%, 77.1% at a floor of 35.6%, 77.1% at a floor of 37.0%, 77.1% at a floor of 38.3%, 77.1% at a floor of 40.5%, 76.5% at a floor of 41.0%, 76.5% at a floor of 42.4%, 76.5% at a floor of 42.8%, 76.5% at a floor of 42.9%, 76.5% at a floor of 43.5%, 76.5% at a floor of 44.7%, 76.5% at a floor of 45.3%, 76.5% at a floor of 46.0%, 76.5% at a floor of 46.8%, 76.5% at a floor of 47.2%, 76.5% at a floor of 50.0%, 76.5% at a floor of 56.0%, 76.5% at a floor of 63.7%; the best fixed basis floors at 63.7%.

A floor for the draw

A basis drawn at random guarantees more on average than any fixed one, at the price of leaving some shape wholly untouched in a large share of trials. Requiring every basis in the draw to keep a floor looks like a smooth trade between the two. It is a staircase, and the first step does nearly all the work. No basis has a floor between zero and 31.83%, so there is nothing to give up until a floor of that size is asked for. And at four functions, seven bases tie at the fixed basis's own 63.66%: a mixture of them keeps that floor exactly and adds thirteen points to the guarantee.

product · Optimum 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 How often one genuine interaction in a table of eight is found, by its size, at latent correlation 0. A trial of 400 with 80% power for its main effect, eight characteristics, the first modifying the effect. At h = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1 the real interaction crosses 5% in 4.2%, 10.3%, 29.2%, 56.6%, 81.0% of trials; Bonferroni's 2.734 in 0.4%, 1.8%, 8.7%, 26.6%, 53.6%; the exact threshold for this overlap, 2.727, in 0.4%, 1.9%, 8.8%, 27.0%, 53.8%.

One characteristic that really matters

A trial of four hundred tabulates eight characteristics and one of them genuinely changes the treatment's effect — the whole effect on one side, none on the other. Tested alone at 5% the real interaction is found 81.0% of the time; at the Bonferroni threshold that protects the table, 53.6%. It is the table's largest interaction in 82.4% of trials when the characteristics are independent and in 54.4% when they overlap like nested age bands, and in that case another characteristic crosses the Bonferroni line in half of all trials and is the top finding in a quarter. A family-wise threshold counts false rows; it cannot say which of two overlapping rows is the cause.

alongside · Repetition A point that decides an interaction, on two covariates correlated at 0. A hundred points on two normal covariates with correlation 0. Dashed lines mark where the most extreme five per cent of each covariate begin. The point carrying the largest share of the interaction's information, 10.2%, is inside the lines on both axes, so neither covariate's plot on its own would show it. The coefficient rests on 19.0 effective points.

A term built from the others

A regression's squared terms and interactions are columns built from its covariates, and each coefficient on one rests on the number of points divided by the kurtosis of what the built column adds — fifteen for the square of a normal covariate, nine for the product of two uncorrelated ones, three for a treatment's interaction with a normal covariate, which is the same as the covariate's own coefficient. A design of a hundred rests on more than the population says, 12.2 points behind a square against 6.7, because a hundred draws rarely hold the tail that sets the kurtosis. Centring changes nothing about the square's coefficient, to the last digit. And correlation between two covariates hides the point that decides each one's own coefficient while it reveals the point that decides their interaction.

spread · Summary How often four permutation tests of a covariate-adjusted effect reject a true weak null, effect varying with the outcome, 25% of 150 treated. At an effect spread of 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2: the adjusted coefficient's permutation test rejects 5.9%, 10.8%, 13.2%, 16.6%, 14.8%; over its sandwich standard error, 5.7%, 5.0%, 3.4%, 3.4%, 3.0%; the coefficient with a treatment-by-covariate interaction, 5.1%, 10.2%, 12.8%, 14.7%, 14.0%; the same over its sandwich standard error, 5.7%, 5.2%, 5.2%, 5.1%, 3.9%.

The repair, with a covariate in it

Studentising a permutation test's statistic made the difference in means exact under the sharp null and nearly right under the weak one. Carried to the covariate-adjusted estimate a trial actually reports, the repair works only if the adjustment includes the treatment-by-covariate interaction. With a quarter of 150 units treated and effects that vary with the outcome, the adjusted estimate's permutation test rejects 14.8% of true weak nulls; over its sandwich standard error, 3.0%; the interacted estimate over its sandwich, 3.9%. When the effect varies with the covariate itself, even an even split does not protect: the adjusted test rejects none of a thousand true weak nulls, and at an average effect of 0.2 its power is 5.2% against the interacted, studentised test's 40.7%.

exact · Nuisance How often an adjusted permutation test rejects a true sharp null when the covariate is chosen after randomisation, held fixed or re-chosen inside every shuffle. 150 units, half treated, six baseline covariates of which three are prognostic; 2,000 experiments and 99 re-randomisations each, read on the adjusted coefficient over its sandwich standard error. Choosing the covariate most correlated with the outcome: 5.0% held fixed, 5.0% re-chosen. Choosing the covariate with the smallest residual variance: 5.5% held fixed, 5.3% re-chosen. Choosing the covariate most imbalanced between the arms: 3.0% held fixed, 4.8% re-chosen. Choosing the covariate with the smallest adjusted p-value: 10.4% held fixed, 5.1% re-chosen. Naming the most prognostic covariate in advance: 5.5%.

The covariate chosen afterwards

A trial that chooses which baseline covariate to adjust for after randomisation has two ways to run its permutation test: hold the chosen covariate fixed across the shuffles, which is what an analysis that reports adjusting for it actually does, or re-make the choice inside every shuffle, which is exact by construction. Holding it fixed, a choice made on significance rejects 10.4% of true sharp nulls, a choice made on imbalance only 3.0% — and pays seven and a half points of power for it — while a choice that never reads the arm labels is the same test either way. The interacted, studentised statistic keeps its weak-null behaviour only when the covariate chosen is the one the effect varies with.

exact · Nuisance The shape one real modifier leaves on a table of eight characteristics, and one trial's table. Expected interaction z when characteristic 1 modifies the effect at h = 1: 2.80, 2.00, 2.00, 2.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 — the real row 2.80, its three nested neighbours 0.713 of that, the four unrelated characteristics nothing. One seeded trial of 400 reads 1.91, 1.90, 2.06, 1.95, 0.14, 0.33, 0.39, 2.08.

The pattern a cause leaves on its neighbours

A characteristic that modifies a treatment's effect raises every characteristic that overlaps it, in proportion to the overlap, and fitting that pattern was supposed to say which one is the cause. Fitted with the noise's own correlation it names the largest row on every trial, because the noise draws the same pattern — so the 54.4% at which the largest row is right among nested characteristics is the most any reading of the table can manage, and the honest answer is a set of about five.

alongside · Repetition

Named alongside it

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

Covariate balanceClosed formMedian splitCorrelationBasis functionsCovariate adjustmentMarginal distributionSkewnessGaussian copulaOrthogonalityCopulaExperimental design

All concepts