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

Leverage — where it appears

How far one observation's predictors sit from the rest, which decides how much the fitted line has to follow it. A single high-leverage point can set a regression's slope on its own, and no summary of the residuals will say so.

Named by 40 essays across 13 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

What is left of a probe after the rule has had it. The share of each dictionary function a rule balancing x, x2, x3, cut0 has already taken, on trials of 14 units, averaged over 100 designs. Four of the eight functions are the basis, so their share is exactly one: a randomisation test run on one of them is asking about a quantity the rule forced to zero, and one of them is the default probe of the field this measurement comes from. The four that are not still read 0.919, 0.873, 0.903, 0.832 — between 0.832 and 0.919 of them is inside the span — against closed-form removed shares of 0.000, 0.692, 0.590, 0.692. At 14 units a rule with four functions in it takes most of anything it is shown.

The part the rule already took

A diagnostic that reports on what a balancing rule was not handed is run through a column that is 92% inside the span the rule balanced — because orthogonality in the population is not orthogonality on fourteen units.

aimed · Randomisation Six groups of 10, each fitting its own slope, then borrowing. Each faint line is one group's own least-squares slope through its own centre; each solid line is that slope after pooling towards the population slope of 0.79. Every group has the same 10 observations. The group whose x values span 0.4 has a slope standard error of 1.86 and moves 91% of the way in; the group spanning 2.0 has a standard error of 0.37 and moves 28%.

The slope that borrows

Pooling a mean makes it look as though how much a group borrows depends on how much data it has. Pool a slope instead and the illusion breaks — ten groups with ten observations each can borrow anything from 28% to 91%, decided entirely by where those ten observations were placed.

multilevel · Levels 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 Twenty points and one more, at leverage 0.74. Without the distant point the slope is 0.495; with it the slope is -0.389. Its leverage is 0.737 and its Cook's distance is 24.1, against a conventional threshold of 1.

The line that one point drew

A single observation among twenty-one reverses the sign of a fitted relationship. Its leverage is known from its x value before the outcome is looked at, so this is a property of the design rather than a surprise in the data.

regression · Leverage 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 How far apart the two components are, on each probe. The median separation between the two components of the admissible set — the difference in their mean probe values, over the spread inside a component — over the 100 of 200 designs whose set is enumerated and found split. The separating direction carries 10.565 and needs the enumeration. The fourth power as the earlier fields use it carries 1.543; projected off the span the rule balances, 5.080. The design's own leverage, which uses no dictionary and no outcome, carries 3.836. A random direction in the same subspace carries 0.942, and a direction chosen by looking for concentrated structure carries 0.543 — below random, and the one heuristic here that is worse than not choosing at all.

A probe chosen from the design

The design's own leverage aligns with the separating direction four times better than a random direction in the same subspace. The concentrated direction the argument invites is worse than random.

aimed · Randomisation Four datasets, slope 0.50, R² 0.67. Every one of these fits reports the same slope to two decimals and the same R². Only the first is a linear relationship with noise: the second is a curve, the third is a line with one outlier, and the fourth has its slope set by a single point.

Four datasets, one summary

Four datasets agree on slope, intercept and R² to two decimals. One is a linear relationship, one is a curve, one is a line with an outlier, and one has its slope set by a single point. The summary cannot tell them apart and neither can any other summary.

regression · Summary What each error is a claim about, and what the claim comes out as. Each variance estimate's average over 20000 draws, divided by the variance the slope actually has across those same draws, at 80 rows with the error variance leaning towards the edges of the design (γ = 0.8). One is a standard error that is right. The model-based estimate reads 0.6081 of the spread, so its standard error is 77.98% of the one it should report; the four robust corrections read 0.9576, 0.9821, 0.9961, 1.0362. Two further routes agree with the count and share none of its arithmetic: n times the counted variance is 4.8905 against a population sandwich of 4.9200, and the counted ratio of the two standard errors is 1.2799 against a closed form of 1.2806.

The bread and the filling

The robust standard error is not a safety margin. At one setting of the error variance it is 1.2806 times the model-based one and at another it is 0.8246 times it, and the sign of a single dial decides which.

sandwich · Misspecification 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 How often each probe finds a split that is there. The share of 34 designs — every one of them enumerated to be in two components — on which a two-chain test of 800 draws declares the split, by probe. The fourth power as the earlier fields use it finds it on 55.9%, so it misses 44.1% of the sets that have one. The same column projected off the rule's span finds it on 88.2%, and the separating direction itself on 91.2%. The design's own leverage, chosen without any dictionary, gets 79.4%. A random direction in the same subspace gets 44.1%, and the direction chosen for being concentrated gets 38.2% — worse than random, which is what a heuristic that finds the wrong structure looks like from the outside.

What a chosen probe finds

On a chain of eight hundred draws the probe the earlier fields use misses 44% of the sets that are split. Its own residual off the rule's span misses 12%, for one least-squares fit.

aimed · Randomisation How far apart four summaries put the quartet. Each bar is the largest value minus the smallest across the four datasets. Pearson spans 0.0018, which is the construction working. Distance correlation — the measure that is zero if and only if the variables are independent — spans 0.101, and Spearman spans 0.491.

The summary that was meant to work

Distance correlation is zero if and only if two variables are independent, which is exactly the guarantee a correlation coefficient lacks. Run on the four datasets that share a correlation, it spreads them by 0.10 — and Spearman, which guarantees nothing, spreads them by 0.49.

spread · Summary What a design does to the residuals of a correct model. Every residual has standard deviation sigma times the square root of one minus its leverage. On this design the leverages run from 0.045 to 0.663, so the residual spreads differ by a factor of 1.68 — and the model is exactly right. The high-leverage point's residual averages 0.46 of the fitted spread where a typical point's averages 0.79.

Residuals are not the errors

A residual's standard deviation is σ√(1 − hᵢᵢ), so a design whose leverages run from 0.045 to 0.663 produces residuals whose spreads differ by a factor of 1.68 with the model exactly right. On the samples where the high-leverage point really did have the largest error, a raw residual plot shows it as the largest on 0.0% of them.

lineup · Qq 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 A fit takes the low frequencies out of what it leaves behind. The autocorrelation of the errors, of the residuals of a fitted benchmark, and of those residuals rescaled by their own leverage. (I − H) removes the component of the errors lying in a column space that is itself slow-moving, so the residuals are less persistent at every lag — by 5.9% at the first and 26.6% by the fourth. The leverage correction is the standard repair for what a fit does to a residual's size; drawn here against what it does to a residual's dependence, it does nothing.

The residuals are not the errors

A fit removes the part of the errors lying in its own column space, and a persistent design's column space is itself slow — so what is left behind is smoother than what went in, at every lag, by an amount that grows with the lag.

effective · Bootstrap What each correction is worth, exactly. Each variance estimate's expectation under a constant error variance, divided by the variance the slope actually has, at 20 rows on an even design, by two routes: the closed form E[eᵢ²] = σ²(1 − hᵢᵢ) carried through each correction's own weight, and the mean of 20000 counted estimates. The maximum leverage here is 0.1857 and the design's fourth-moment share Σu⁴/(Σu²)² is 0.0897, which is the only thing the closed form reads. HC0 comes out at 0.8603 — short by construction, since its factor is exactly 1 − 1/n − Σu⁴/(Σu²)². HC1 reaches 0.9559, HC2 is exactly 1.0000 at every design and every sample size, and HC3 overshoots to 1.1647. On an even design the four are within a fifth of each other and the choice barely matters.

Three corrections and a leverage

On an even design of twenty rows the four robust corrections read 0.8603, 0.9559, 1.0000 and 1.1647 of the truth and the choice barely matters. Add one point at x = 8 and they read 0.3191, 0.3419, 1.0000 and 5.1127.

sandwich · Misspecification A discrepancy of 4 σ at the top of the range: one bad run, or a line that bends there, in two designs of twelve runs. The same twelve errors in every panel. With one run at the top (upper panels) a bad observation and a bent line produce identical data, point for point. With three runs at the top (lower panels) the bad observation leaves one run far from its two neighbours and the bent line moves all three together. The dashed line is the true line; the grey line is the least-squares fit.

Three runs at the end of the line

With one run at the top of a regression's range, a bad observation there and a line that bends there produce data with exactly the same distribution, so no residual, influence measure or test can say which happened. Move six of twelve runs to the ends, three at each, and a discrepancy of four σ is named correctly as a bad run 84.1% of the time and as a bend 91.6% — while the slope's standard error falls from 0.0836 to 0.0709. The design, not the diagnostic, decides whether the question has an answer.

lineup · Qq Three summaries of a fitted line's geometry on Anscombe's four datasets, with each rule's threshold. Largest leverage: 0.318, 0.318, 0.318, 1.000 against a threshold of 0.364. Largest Cook's distance: 0.489, 0.808, 1.393, undefined, the point fits itself against 1 and against 0.364. Largest studentised deleted residual: 2.1, 2.2, 1192.2, undefined against a Bonferroni threshold of 3.90.

Two numbers for the fit's geometry

No summary of the dependence between x and y can flag Anscombe's third and fourth datasets. A summary of the fit's own geometry can, and it takes two numbers of different kinds: the largest leverage, which reads the design before any y is seen and flags the fourth with certainty, and the largest deleted residual against a Bonferroni threshold, which flags the third at 1,192 and raises a false alarm on 4.78% of honest datasets. The rule of thumb most often quoted, Cook's distance over 4/n, flags the honest line too — and 66.45% of honest datasets like it.

spread · Summary Projection as a dial. Each probe projected a fraction λ of the way off the span of the rule's balanced columns, over the 100 designs of 200 whose admissible set is enumerated to be split; the median separation — the two components' difference in mean probe value over the spread inside a component. the separating direction: 10.565 at 0, 11.500 at 0.25, 11.456 at 0.4, 11.424 at 0.5, 11.240 at 0.6, 10.664 at 0.75, 10.427 at 0.9, 10.273 at 1; the design's leverage: 4.537 at 0, 4.845 at 0.25, 4.924 at 0.4, 4.849 at 0.5, 4.678 at 0.6, 4.417 at 0.75, 4.205 at 0.9, 3.836 at 1; the fourth power: 1.543 at 0, 1.846 at 0.25, 2.094 at 0.4, 2.570 at 0.5, 2.870 at 0.6, 3.686 at 0.75, 4.579 at 0.9, 5.080 at 1.

How far to project

The field's repair for a probe is to project it off the span the balancing rule already pinned. Treated as a dial rather than a switch, that repair is right all the way for the fourth power — its separation rises from 1.543 unprojected to 5.080 fully projected — and wrong for the design's own leverage, which carries 4.537 unprojected, 4.924 at four tenths of the way and only 3.836 projected fully. The leverage probe the field recommended was a third of the way past its best. Even the separating direction itself gains a little from a partial projection and loses a little from a full one.

aimed · Randomisation 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 Two far rows, and the line with one of them deleted. Twenty clean points and two rows near x = 9. The slope is −0.511 with every row, −0.376 with one far row deleted, and 0.495 with both deleted. Deleting one of them barely moves the line, because the other is still there.

Two points that hide each other

One far observation among twenty-one has a Cook's distance of 24.1. Put a second beside it and the two read 0.966 and 0.772, neither crossing 1, while together they reverse the slope and deleting both moves the fit by 53.3.

regression · Leverage How many of 100 points a fitted slope rests on, by the distribution the covariate was drawn from. The effective number of points behind a slope is n divided by the design's kurtosis. Over designs of 100, its median share is two points, half at each: 1.000; uniform: 0.551; normal: 0.349; exponential: 0.160; Student's t, 3 df: 0.148; lognormal, σ = 1: 0.076 — 34.9 of 100 points for a normal covariate and 7.6 for a lognormal one.

The points a slope rests on

Before any outcome is measured, a regression's design already says how many of its points the slope will rest on: n divided by the covariate's kurtosis, exactly. A hundred points of a normal covariate carry a slope on about 35 of them; a hundred of a lognormal one, on 7.6. The largest leverage follows the same tail — above one half in 15.7% of lognormal designs of a hundred and in none of the normal ones — and on a correct straight line, deleting the single highest-leverage point moves the slope by more than its standard error in 16.3% of lognormal datasets of a hundred and 0.1% of normal ones.

spread · Summary The displacement per parameter, under five predictor laws. The out-of-sample differential one extra parameter costs a correct candidate, at a window of 80 rows, by two routes that share no arithmetic: counted from rolling forecasts over 1,500 draws of the fifteen-candidate table, and implied by the expected leverage of a fresh row over 80,000 draws of the predictors alone. The Gaussian closed form is 0.01386. normal: 0.01382 counted, 0.01386 from the leverage; Student's t, 8: 0.01379 counted, 0.01407 from the leverage; Student's t, 5: 0.01419 counted, 0.01448 from the leverage; Student's t, 3: 0.01751 counted, 0.01780 from the leverage; exponential: 0.01465 counted, 0.01487 from the leverage.

The displacement on a heavy tail

A correct candidate with one more parameter is behind out of sample by a closed-form amount, and the closed form rests on one Gaussian fact: the expected leverage of a fresh row is q/(R − q − 1). On predictors that are not Gaussian it becomes whatever the leverage is, and two routes that share no arithmetic agree on what that is. With a finite fourth moment it barely moves — 1.5% more per parameter at eight degrees of freedom, 4.5% at five, 7.3% on an exponential. At three degrees of freedom it is 28% more, and the estimate of it will not settle: four batches of twenty thousand draws disagree by more than a quarter.

select · Multiplicity 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 One unit that never changes arm. Every admissible assignment of one design of fourteen units — 192 of them, enumerated, in two components of 96 and 96 — read unit by unit: for each unit, the share of a component's assignments that put it in the treated arm, in the first component (filled) and the second (open). Most units are treated on between a third and two thirds of either component's assignments. One unit, the one at x = 0.28, is treated on 0% of the first component's assignments and 100% of the second's. Asking which arm that unit is in tells the two components apart without error, which no linear probe built from the covariate does.

A ceiling that is one unit

The benchmark every probe of a split admissible set was measured against maximised the wrong thing, so the obvious next step was the direction that maximises the separation itself. On 88 of 100 split designs that direction has no finite value: some combination of units reads the same on every assignment of a component. On 83 of them it is a single unit, sitting in one arm across one component and the other arm across the other — and a chain can see a unit that never moves without enumerating anything.

aimed · Randomisation When each unit first changed arm. One design of two hundred units, the rule balancing the covariate, its square and a median cut, and a swap-one-pair chain run for 1.6 million steps from a random admissible start, at six tolerances: for each unit, the step at which its arm first differed from the start, the two hundred sorted from first to last. At 1: half the units had moved by step 79, nine in ten by 269, all by 1,073; At 0.6: half the units had moved by step 79, nine in ten by 362, all by 1,073; At 0.4: half the units had moved by step 106, nine in ten by 429, all by 1,593; At 0.3: half the units had moved by step 153, nine in ten by 645, all by 3,878; At 0.22: half the units had moved by step 194, nine in ten by 747, all by 1.1 million; At 0.16: half the units had moved by step 237, nine in ten by 1270, and 1 never moved. The last units to move set the run length a diagnostic built on them needs, and at the tightest tolerance one never does.

A unit that has not moved

At two hundred units the two-chain diagnostic could not settle its own verdict, because its standard error needed a relaxation time the run was too short to estimate. Reading which units moved needs no standard error. Run for 1.6 million steps on five designs, it finds a unit in place in both chains on three designs at the tightest tolerance and one at the next — and every one of them is a unit no swap can move from any admissible assignment, by arithmetic. The admissible set does split at two hundred units, and the split is one extreme unit.

reach · Randomisation The rows are held fixed; only the clusters move. Counted coverage of four 95% intervals for a slope, at five cluster counts with the row count held at 300 throughout and a within-cluster correlation of 0.1, over 6000 draws apiece, with the sizes equal. The interval that counts rows covers 53.42% at 5 clusters — a second closed form says 2Φ(z/√D) − 1 = 54.44% for a design effect of 6.900, and reads nothing about clusters at all. The cluster-robust interval read against a normal covers 74.43% there and 94.20% at 100 clusters; read against a t on G − 1 it covers 85.08% and 94.47%. The number of independent things is the cluster count, and every quantity here is blind to how many rows were typed.

The count that is not the rows

Three hundred rows in five clusters of sixty carry 6.9000 times the variance an independent-rows calculation reports, and the interval that counts rows covers 53.42%. The same five unequal sizes laid out two ways give design effects of 9.3158 and 5.4652.

sandwich · Misspecification One row at x = 9 on a wrong line, fitted three ways. Least squares gives slope −0.389, Huber 0.171 with the extra row at weight 0.115, and least trimmed squares 0.420, fitted to the 12 rows it keeps. The twenty clean rows alone give 0.495. Open circles are the rows the trimmed fit leaves out.

A robust loss and a far x

One far row drags least squares to a slope of −0.389. Huber's loss, the standard robust line, reaches only 0.171, and carried further out the same row gets its full weight back. Least trimmed squares reads 0.420 at every distance, and at the normal model keeps 7.13% of least squares' efficiency to do it.

regression · Leverage Three intervals as one strength is spread thinner, at a concentration of 8. Coverage of three nominal 95.0% intervals on the same 1000 draws of 200 rows at each count, when a total concentration parameter of 8 is spread over 1 to 32 instruments. Two-stage least squares covers 97.2%, 96.4%, 94.0%, 86.7%, 73.2%, 51.5%. Building each row's fitted treatment from a first stage that never saw that row covers 97.1%, 97.2%, 98.3%, 97.8%, 97.9%, 98.7%. Limited-information maximum likelihood with its conventional standard error covers 97.2%, 96.7%, 95.7%, 90.9%, 85.2%, 79.0%. At one instrument the likelihood estimator is two-stage least squares exactly, which is why the first readings of those two agree to the last draw.

Leaving each row out of its own first stage

Spread a fixed first-stage strength over thirty-two instruments and two-stage least squares covers 51.5%. Build each row's fitted treatment from a first stage that never saw that row and the same draws cover 98.7% — through an interval 5.99 times as wide, around an estimate that misses by more than the whole effect on 34.7% of draws. At eight times the strength the same repair covers 95.3% and costs a width factor of 1.66.

instrument · Exclusion How often a quantile plot's shape test sees a skewed error distribution, on the errors and on residuals of fits of more columns. On the forty errors themselves the test flags 82.9%. On the residuals of fits with 2, 5, 10, 20 columns: 79.1%, 71.4%, 51.2%, 23.0%. On 40 − p errors, which is what losing the fitted columns' worth of observations alone would give: 80.6%, 76.1%, 69.1%, 49.5%.

Residuals that look too normal

The quantile plot most often read is of a regression's residuals, and residuals look more normal than the errors behind them. Each residual is a mix of all the errors, and the mix moves towards a bell as the fit takes more columns. On forty rows with skewed errors, the straightness test flags 82.9% of samples of the errors themselves, 79.1% of the residuals of a line, 71.4% with five columns, 51.2% with ten and 23.0% with twenty — far below the 49.5% that twenty errors would give, so the fit costs more than the observations it uses. Light tails vanish faster: 73.0% on the errors, 4.7% on twenty-column residuals. The band's level holds at every design, and one point with leverage 0.73 costs almost nothing; what costs is the number of columns.

lineup · Qq A point that decides a coefficient, on two covariates correlated at 0.9. A hundred points on two normal covariates with correlation 0.9. Dashed lines mark where the most extreme five per cent of each covariate begin. The point carrying the largest share of the first coefficient's information, 14.2%, is inside the lines on both axes, so neither covariate's plot on its own would show it. The coefficient rests on 26.1 effective points, with a variance inflation of 6.27.

A point ordinary on every axis

In a multiple regression each coefficient rests on its own number of points, n divided by the kurtosis of that covariate's residual after the others, exactly. Correlation between normal covariates inflates a coefficient's variance fivefold and leaves it resting on the same third of the points. What correlation does instead is hide the point that decides the coefficient: at a correlation of 0.9 it stands out on no single covariate's plot in 77.3% of designs of a hundred, and the largest leverage a normal design reaches depends on the number of points and covariates and on nothing else.

spread · Summary 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 The excess over the Gaussian displacement, by window. By how much the expected leverage per parameter exceeds the Gaussian closed form, with the fresh row integrated out, at windows 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640. normal: -0.90%, -0.61%, -0.04%, -0.06%, -0.02%, 0.00%. t on eight: 4.14%, 2.78%, 1.79%, 0.73%, 0.28%, 0.18%. t on five: 10.70%, 7.50%, 3.93%, 2.01%, 1.26%, 0.70%. t on three: 44.44%, 32.67%, 22.62%, 16.43%, 11.70%, 7.63%. exponential: 27.91%, 14.01%, 7.21%, 3.53%, 1.93%, 0.85%. On normal predictors the closed form is exact from a window of 80.

An excess and its window

The parameter-count displacement is a Gaussian fact, and on heavy-tailed predictors it runs a few per cent over. Swept across windows from 20 to 640 rows, the excess is about the predictors' excess kurtosis divided by the window: a law with a fourth moment of nine on 80 rows is 7.5% over, and on 640 rows under one. At three degrees of freedom it falls only as the root of the window, from 44% to 7.6%. And the instability once blamed on that law was not there: with the fresh row integrated out, the batches agree to a point and a half, and the mean exists.

select · Multiplicity One row at x = 9 on a wrong line, fitted three ways. Least squares gives slope −0.389, Huber 0.171 with the extra row at weight 0.115, and least trimmed squares 0.420, fitted to the 12 rows it keeps. The MM-estimator carried on from the trimmed fit gives 0.479, with the extra row at weight 0.000 and the scale fixed at 0.319. The twenty clean rows alone give 0.495. Open circles are the rows the trimmed fit leaves out.

The start an efficient robust line inherits

The MM-estimator carries a trimmed fit on through a redescending loss, and it does what it promises on one far row: slope 0.479 at every distance, the row at weight exactly zero, and 87.2% of least squares' efficiency at twenty rows. What it cannot do is choose. At eight far rows of twenty the exact trimmed fit picks the wrong half on 111 datasets; the efficient step repairs none of them, spoils none of the other 89, and ends nearer the wrong line than the start did.

regression · Leverage Whether residuals built to be independent see a skewed error better than ordinary ones. The straightness test, each version read at its own 5% point. On all forty errors: 82.9%. At 2, 5, 10, 20 columns: ordinary residuals 79.1%, 71.4%, 51.2%, 23.0%; BLUS residuals 76.4%, 64.9%, 38.3%, 16.2%; recursive residuals 64.4%, 49.5%, 25.9%, 9.1%; 40 − p errors 80.6%, 76.1%, 69.1%, 49.5%.

Residuals made independent

Recursive residuals — each row predicted from the fit to the rows before it — are exactly independent normals under the null for any design, so a quantile plot of them has an exact band. They see a skewed error worse than the ordinary residuals do, not better: 25.9% against 51.2% at ten columns on forty rows, 9.1% against 23.0% at twenty. BLUS residuals, the independent set closest to the errors, reach 38.3% and 16.2%. Every such set is a rotation of the ordinary residuals, so none holds information they lack, and independence is bought by mixing some residuals almost entirely out of other rows' errors — the least pure recursive residual at twenty columns is 0.4% its own.

lineup · Qq 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 The weight each of a hundred outcomes carries in the fitted value at the 97.5th percentile of a lognormal covariate. One design of a hundred lognormal covariate values. The fitted value at a covariate value of 7.10 is a weighted sum of the outcomes, with weights fixed by the design. Under a line and its square it rests on 10.7 effective points, the largest carrying 19.1% of its variance. Under a natural spline with knots at 0.17, 0.57, 1.18, 3.95 it rests on 3.8, the largest carrying 41.1%.

A value read off a curve

No coefficient of a spline is read; what is read is the fitted curve's value at a covariate value of interest, and that value is a weighted sum of the outcomes with weights the design fixes before any outcome is seen. In the tail of a lognormal covariate a natural spline's value rests on 4.8 of a hundred points, fewer than the squared term's coefficient's 6.9, and the squared term's own value there rests on 10.2 — yet it is three times further from the truth, because its extra points are borrowed from where the curve has a different shape and buy no precision at all. At four hundred points, moving the last knot past the value raises its count threefold and halves its error; doubling the data does neither.

spread · Summary Two halves of one dataset with 8 far rows of twenty: the trimmed fit's winner and the best half with the other sign. Twenty rows, 8 of them near x = 9 on a line with a reversed slope. The exact trimmed fit keeps the eleven rows whose own line has the smallest residual sum: 5 far rows and 6 clean ones, slope -0.629, residual sum 0.587. The best eleven rows whose line slopes the other way are all clean, slope 0.398, residual sum 0.657 — 1.12 times the winner's.

The other half a trimmed fit rejected

The exact trimmed fit visits every half of the data, so it can report more than its winner: the best half whose line slopes the other way. Whenever the winner is reversed by a far cluster, that other half is the clean line. Printed beside the winner when its residual sum is within 1.70 times — a rule that raises five per cent of clean datasets — it flags 65% of the reversed fits at seven far rows of twenty, 55% at eight and 30% at nine, and no rule built on fit can do better at nine, where the far cluster has become the tighter half by every measure the data hold.

regression · Leverage What the sixteen-run factorial's surviving runs estimate when about 1.3 runs are lost, by why they were lost. A 2⁴ factorial fitting eleven coefficients; true A = 1, B = 0.5, AB = 0.5, everything else 0, noise 1; 20,000 datasets. Runs are lost when the response exceeds 2.5, or at random at the high corner of A and B, or at random anywhere, each losing 1.26 runs on average. Bias of the fit on the surviving runs — lost at random: A 0.001, B 0.003, AB 0.000, C -0.002; lost at the high corner: A 0.003, B 0.001, AB 0.000, C -0.000; lost when the response passes the threshold: A -0.131, B -0.120, AB -0.117, C -0.000.

A run lost for a reason

A sixteen-run factorial that loses a run at random loses precision and nothing else. One that loses a run because the process failed — the response passed a threshold — loses about the same number of runs and biases exactly the effects that pushed the response there: an interaction of 0.5 reads 0.383, a main effect of 1 reads 0.869, and the interval around each still covers about 94%. Treating the lost runs as censored above the threshold overshoots with eleven coefficients and works with six, because a run's own leverage decides how much a censored observation pulls its own estimate.

design · Factorial Coverage of the cluster-robust slope interval at six, ten and twenty clusters of unequal size, by reference. 5,000 studies of 300 rows at each setting, within-cluster correlation 0.2. 6 clusters, equal sizes: 89.1%, 92.6%, 96.0%; 6 clusters, 5:1, big at the edges: 80.1%, 88.1%, 95.2%; 6 clusters, 5:1, big at the centre: 93.8%, 95.4%, 96.8%; 6 clusters, 15:1, big at the edges: 76.2%, 86.8%, 94.5%; 10 clusters, equal sizes: 91.1%, 93.0%, 95.8%; 10 clusters, 5:1, big at the edges: 86.3%, 90.3%, 94.7%; 10 clusters, 5:1, big at the centre: 94.5%, 95.7%, 96.4%; 10 clusters, 15:1, big at the edges: 84.9%, 89.6%, 94.8%; 20 clusters, equal sizes: 92.9%, 93.8%, 95.1%; 20 clusters, 5:1, big at the edges: 90.9%, 92.7%, 94.8%; 20 clusters, 5:1, big at the centre: 94.5%, 95.0%, 95.6%; 20 clusters, 15:1, big at the edges: 90.6%, 92.4%, 94.7% — for the usual variance on G − 2, the bias-reduced variance on G − 2, and the bias-reduced variance on its effective count.

An effective number of clusters

Ten clusters of thirty rows, a covariate spread evenly across them, and a cluster-robust interval for the slope read against a t on G − 2 = 8 covers 91.1%. The slope needed about five degrees of freedom, not eight, because the two outermost clusters carry 49% of its variance and the middle two 0.6%. A count computed from the sizes and positions before any outcome is seen — 4.45 here, 3.32 when the big clusters sit at the edges — with the bias-reduced variance covers between 94.5% and 96.8% in all twelve layouts measured, where the usual interval on G − 2 covers between 76.2% and 94.5%.

sandwich · Misspecification How far each estimator errs when instruments are cells of unequal size and the confounding moves with them, μ² = 8. Thirty-three cells of 2 to 15 units, thirty-two instruments, 1,000 draws a point. At η = 0, 1, 2: two-stage least squares 0.286, 0.387, 0.593; likelihood, Bekker's interval 0.049, 0.534, 0.830; jackknife instrumental 0.146, 0.325, 0.689; jackknife likelihood, robust interval 0.066, 0.066, 0.195.

Cells of unequal size and an error that follows them

Thirty-two instruments that are the indicators of cells holding 2 to 15 units each, and confounding whose variance is larger in the small cells. Limited-information maximum likelihood, the estimator that came out least biased with many instruments, then errs by 0.534 at a concentration of 8 — further than two-stage least squares — and Bekker's interval covers 74.8%. The jackknife version of the likelihood, which never lets a row's own leverage reach its own fitted value, errs by 0.066 and its robust interval covers 90.6%; at eight times the strength, 94.8% against Bekker's 87.3%. On normal instruments the same unequal variance costs almost nothing, because their leverages are nearly equal.

instrument · Exclusion

Named alongside it

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

Model diagnosticsExperimental designLeast squaresCovariate balanceHat matrixClosed formRandomisation testExact enumerationAssignment mechanismProjectionConnected componentMonte Carlo

All concepts