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

Regret — where it appears

How much worse the model a rule delivers is than the best model that was available, measured on the quantity the rule is meant to be optimising. Unlike an error rate it needs no null hypothesis, which is what makes it the right currency for comparing selection rules.

Named by 23 essays across 10 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The dependence, at four removes. Under AR(1) at 0.8, four different sequences all called the dependence. The top line is the law. The middle line is what a sample of 120 errors reports on average — computable exactly, because the expectation of a sample autocovariance is arithmetic once the covariance is known. The lower line is what a candidate's residuals report, which is what every two-step rule in this collection actually reads: a fit removes variance, and it removes more of the persistent part than of the rest. At the first lag the three are 0.800, 0.7773 and 0.7338. The dots are counted from draws and share no arithmetic with the line they sit on; the worst departure is 1.2 standard errors.

A dependence fitted with the line

Every whitening in this collection reads the dependence off a set of residuals, and residuals are not errors. Fitting the two together recovers most of what that costs, and changes almost nothing about the decision it feeds.

together · Dependence Four dependences a single parameter cannot tell apart. Every law here is standardised to a lag-one autocorrelation of 0.8, so a rule told the errors are a first-order autoregression finds the same number in all four and has no way of seeing what separates them. The geometric decay is the world in which estimating a covariance rather than naming it was priced, and found to cost. The five-period moving average has 0.200 at the fourth lag and exactly nothing past it, where the geometric law says 0.328 at the fifth. Long memory at d = 4/9 is still at 0.576 by the twentieth lag, where the geometric law has reached 0.012. The break has no autocorrelation function at all: what is drawn for it is the average over the pairs at each gap, which is what a stationary estimate converges to.

A dependence with a shape

Four ways for errors to repeat, all with the same first lag and nothing else in common. A rule told the errors are a first-order autoregression finds the same number in all four, and is right about one of them.

general · Dependence One factor moves and the other does not. The two factors of the same average, each drawn against its own largest value so that they share an axis. The rate at which the five candidates disagree about the tuning parameter rises from 28.6% at 4 values on the list to 43.3% at 8, a factor of 1.52. What a disagreement costs, given that there was one, is 0.00975 ± 0.00224 and 0.00848 ± 0.00113 at the same two points — 0.5 standard errors apart, and the paired comparison on the draws that disagree under both lists puts it the other way. The guess this field was written to test was that a longer list makes disagreements commoner and each one smaller. The first half is right and there is no second half.

A rate times a size

A sweep reported what it costs to let every candidate choose its own tuning parameter and found it flat across the list. It was reporting a product, and the two things multiplied together do not behave the same way at all.

apiece · Order-selection The number the comparison was missing. What it costs to choose the tuning parameter for every candidate separately rather than once for the table, under AR(1) at 0.8, paired on the draw. The window's figure is the one the earlier field reported; the order's is the one it named and did not make. They are the same size — 0.00401 against 0.00360, at 2.30 and 1.72 paired standard errors — and matching the lists at eight values leaves them the same size again. The prediction that the longer list would make the order's cost the larger of the two is not what happens; what happens is that the two rules cost the same once they are scored by the same criterion, which took a missing term to arrange.

The comparison that was not made

Choosing a whitening's window separately for every candidate costs 0.00401 of regret. The same question about an order was named and left, because the two lists are different lengths. The order's answer is 0.00360, and matching the lists changes almost nothing.

lists · Order-selection The eighth was not a constant. The probability that a per-candidate tuning list changes which candidate the table selects, at each of 5 separations between the candidates, over 800 draws apiece. The earlier field reports this flat at about an eighth across list length, on a table and a world it never varies. Vary how much the omitted coefficients are worth — one multiplier, with the table, the list, the law and the sample size all held — and it runs from 17.6% to 1.5%, a factor of 11.75. The world in which every candidate is true is the world in which the tuning list decides most; the world in which one candidate dominates is the world in which it decides nothing.

The eighth that was not a constant

How often a per-candidate tuning list changes which candidate wins is reported flat at about an eighth across list length. Vary how far apart the candidates are instead and it runs from 17.6% to 1.5%.

turnover · Order-selection What a disagreement costs, split on whether it decided anything. The regret from choosing the tuning parameter per candidate, on the draws where the candidates disagreed, split on whether the disagreement changed which candidate the table selects. Over 1200 draws at each list length: when the winner changes the regret is 0.02215, 0.03029, 0.03145; when it does not it is -0.00243, -0.00069, -0.00065 — negative, and small enough that it is inside two standard errors of nothing at every length. The whole of the cost lives in the first column, and the second column is not merely small but slightly the wrong sign: when the table's answer is unaffected, letting each candidate use its own window is a very slightly better rule than making them share one. So a disagreement about the tuning parameter is not a cost. A disagreement that changes the winner is.

The quarrel that changes the winner

A disagreement about the tuning parameter costs 0.031 when it changes which candidate the table selects and −0.0007 when it does not. The distance between the values disagreed about has nothing to do with it.

apiece · Order-selection The term that cancels, and the term that does not. The volume each candidate's whitening moves — log|Ω̂| — for a sieve of order 4 on one sample of 120 rows. Estimated once from the fullest candidate and used for the whole table, it is the same number for every candidate, so it drops out of every difference the criterion reads: that is why nothing in this collection has ever needed to carry it. Estimated from each candidate's own residuals it ranges over 23.87, which is more than a parameter is worth, and the criteria being compared are then fits made under different error models with no term saying so. The window's rule has carried this term since the estimated-covariance field and the sieve's never had it.

The volume a whitening moves

A sieve's whitening has a determinant and this collection's criterion for it never carried one. Shared across a table the term cancels exactly, which is why nothing ever noticed; used per candidate it is worth more than a parameter and the whole comparison turns on it.

lists · Criterion Two factors, opposite directions. The two factors the cost of a per-candidate tuning parameter is a product of, as the candidates are pulled apart, over 800 draws at each of 5 separations. How often the candidates disagree about the tuning parameter rises from 31.8% to 88.8%; the share of those disagreements that change which candidate the table selects falls from 51.6% to 1.7%. So the setting where the candidates quarrel most about the tuning parameter is the setting where the quarrel matters least, and a sweep that reads the rate and stops has read the factor pointing the wrong way.

Two factors pointing opposite ways

As the candidates on a table are pulled apart, they quarrel about the tuning parameter three times as often and the quarrel decides the winner thirty times less often. A sweep that reads the first factor has read the one pointing the wrong way.

turnover · Order-selection Generality in the wrong direction buys nothing. Regret on a sample whose persistence changes from 0.95 to 0.65 at row 60, over 200 draws. The three stationary rules — told one number, told a window, told an order — are within 0.4 standard errors of each other, and all three stop in the same place: they are general in the lag direction, and the departure is in the other one. Letting the model change once, at a point estimated from the same residuals, is worth 0.05021 more at 4.5 paired standard errors — about as much again as the whole of the first repair. Being told where the break is adds 0.01926, and being told the entire covariance adds 0.02465.

Where the generality runs out

A covariance that changes half way through a sample is not one a window can estimate. One number, a window and an order are worth the same as each other on it — and letting the model change once, at a point nobody can locate, is worth as much again as all three.

general · Dependence What a longer list actually changes. How often the five candidates choose different tuning parameters, at a true null where every one of them contains the truth, so a disagreement is manufactured rather than discovered. The order's list is an interval of integers, and thinning it moves the rate smoothly from 0% at two values to 39% at thirteen. The window's is not an interval — it runs 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 20, 30 — so a thinned window list jumps depending on whether it happens to keep the width the criterion wants, between 0% and 42% with no order to it. So "the same length" was never quite the same thing for the two rules, and it is a smaller effect than the field it was invoked to explain.

A list is not a rule

How often five candidates disagree about a tuning parameter runs from nothing at two values on the list to two draws in five at thirteen. What the disagreement costs does not move at all.

lists · Order-selection Flat along a row, apart between them. The probability that a per-candidate tuning list changes the winner, at three list lengths on three candidate tables, over 800 draws in each of the nine cells. Along a row — the reading the earlier field takes — it moves by a factor of at most 1.21, so that field's invariant survives on every table. Down a column it moves by up to 1.98. The list length is the dial that does not move this number and the table is one that does, and the earlier field varied only the first.

A table and a list

A nested ladder of candidates differing by one coefficient was predicted to turn over more often at every list length. It turns over less at every one, and its list changes the winner half as often.

turnover · Order-selection Cut the charge and the width follows it. The band width each charge picks, averaged over 400 draws of 120 rows under AR(1) at 0.8, with the standard deviation across draws beside it. Schwarz's charge — half a log n a lag, which is 2.39 here — picks 3.67. Akaike's picks 6.02. Charging the numbers the window actually leaves free, which is half the width, picks 10.12; charging what the optimism measures, 0.767 of that, picks 14.15. A charge and the width it buys are very nearly reciprocal, which is what a likelihood rising at a fixed rate a lag implies and is why the four answers span a factor of 3.86. The width that was actually best on the draw averages 13.90 and moves by 10.30 from draw to draw — three times as much as any rule's answer does.

A width that moves and an error that does not

Four charges give four widths a factor of four apart and four errors half a per cent apart. The derived charge wins, significantly, by a quarter of what was on offer — and none of the four is an estimate of anything.

dimension · Criterion How often the split is taken, and by which rule. Over 400 draws on each of five laws. The first two rows have no break in them at all, the last two have one at row 60, and the middle one is a moving average. A criterion that counts a fitted two-regime model's parameters and nothing else takes the split on 99% of draws where there is no break. Counting the break point as one more parameter brings that to 67%. Charging what the search actually manufactures — 5.16 units, measured on a law with no break — brings it to 16%, and still takes the split on 61% of draws where there is one.

Choosing whether to break

Charging what the search manufactures takes a rule from splitting a stationary sample on 99% of draws to 16%. It also costs regret, because the two mistakes a rule can make are not the same size.

charged · Break point The quantity that does not depend on the list. The probability that letting each candidate choose its own tuning parameter changes which candidate the table selects — the product of the two moving shares — against the length of the list, over 1200 draws apiece. It is 14.2%, 11.9%, 12.3%: a spread of 2.2% across a list length that moves the disagreement rate by a factor of 1.52. This is the invariant the whole field turns on. Everything downstream of the winner — the coefficients, the regret, whatever a reader is going to quote — is a function of whether the winner changed, and how often that happens is not something the list controls. A longer list changes how often the candidates quarrel and not how often the quarrel matters.

How often it matters

The disagreement rate rises by half across the list and the share of disagreements that decide anything falls by nearly the same factor. Their product — how often the tuning list changes which candidate wins — sits at an eighth and does not move.

apiece · Order-selection One likelihood, three answers. The concentrated Gaussian log-likelihood of one sample of 120 rows under AR(1) at 0.8, as a function of the correlation the errors are whitened at. Three rules put three different numbers on this curve. The two-step rule reads the least-squares residuals and lands at 0.7616, giving up 0.304 of log-likelihood. Iterating moves it to 0.8080 and gives up 0.002. The maximum is at 0.8044. The curve is not flat between them: what a fixed point of the residual update finds is a solution of a different equation, and the difference is the Jacobian term ½log(1 − ρ²), which grows as the correlation does.

Iterating is not maximising

Re-reading a correlation from the generalised residuals and refitting converges in seven steps. What it converges to solves the first-order condition of a sum of squares, and the likelihood has one term more than that.

together · Dependence A wider band is always a better fit. The likelihood maximised over the band, at five widths, averaged over 30 samples. A band at L lags is a band at L + 1 with the last entry held at zero, so the families are nested and the maximised likelihood cannot fall — it does not, on any draw. What it does is rise at 0.984 of log-likelihood a lag. A parameter that is doing nothing buys half a unit in expectation and Akaike's criterion charges one, so this is a criterion very nearly indifferent between every width on offer. The dashed line is what a charge of one unit a lag would exactly cancel. Nothing in the fit chooses a width, and what does choose one is a charge somebody has to pick.

Nothing in the fit picks the width

A wider band is always a better fit, and it is better by about one unit of log-likelihood a lag — which is the order of what a criterion charges for a parameter. Three defensible rules choose widths a factor of three apart.

family · Order-selection The window a whitening wants is not the memory of the errors. Regret under a five-period moving average as the tapered estimate is given more lags, over 120 draws at n = 120. The best window is L = 30; the automatic bandwidth is 4 and the error model's own likelihood chooses 9.7 on average. Both land in the same place and both are short, and the reason is the taper: a Bartlett weight at lag k is 1 − k/(L + 1), so a window of 8 keeps 0.556 of whatever the fourth lag carries and a window of 30 keeps 0.871. A window has to be several times the memory before it stops removing the memory. The dashed line is the rule told the errors are a first-order autoregression, which needs no window at all.

The window a whitening wants

Every law here is best whitened by a window several times longer than its own memory, including the one whose memory ends at the fourth lag. The three ways of choosing it from the sample all land in the same place, and it is the wrong one.

general · Order-selection The argument is a third of the size of the thing it is inside. Three quantities on one scale, in points of the error in a block resample's implied long-run variance, at 120 rows. The gap between the two windows at the best available block length — the whole subject of the comparison this field inherited — is 2.12 points. What the best rule a practitioner could actually run gives up against that same best length is 7.26, a factor of 3.42. What the rule of thumb gives up is 26.01. So the ordering between windows is worth establishing and is not worth arguing about, and the sentence that follows from it is not use the taper but estimate the block length, because that is where the points are.

What choosing the length costs

The gap between two block windows at the best available length is 2.12 points. What the best rule a practitioner could run gives up against that same length is 7.26. The argument is a third of the size of the thing it is inside.

feasible · Bootstrap One window for the table, or one each. The regret of the same fifteen-candidate table under AR(1) at 0.8 over 150 draws, with the window attached three ways. Chosen once from the fullest candidate's residuals it gives up 0.02518. Chosen from each candidate's own residuals, with the covariance estimate still shared, it gives up 0.02799 — a paired cost of 0.00281 at 2.0 standard errors for the tuning parameter alone. Estimating the covariance per candidate as well costs 0.01087, so the objection already on record is about 3.9 times the size of the one that was not.

A window for every candidate

The window and the order a whitening needs are chosen once, from the fullest candidate, on an argument that was made about an estimated covariance. A tuning parameter is not a covariance, and the two cost different amounts.

together · Order-selection Four sequences, and the rule only ever sees the last one. Under long memory at d = 4/9, four things that are all called the dependence. The law itself is the top line. What a sample of 120 rows reports on average is the second, computed exactly: subtracting a sample mean takes the first lag from 0.800 to 0.538. What a candidate's residuals report is the third, lower again at 0.472, because a fit removes dependence along with signal. The autoregressions are fitted to that third sequence and reproduce it exactly out to their own order — the Yule–Walker equations are solved to make it so — so everything they say past that is extrapolation. At the twentieth lag the law has 0.576, the residuals report 0.006, and an AR(8) extrapolates 0.028.

The order the tail is drawn at

A fitted autoregression reproduces the sample exactly at the lags it was fitted on, so everything it says past them is extrapolation — and the order is the dial that decides how much of it there is.

general · Order-selection The scale moves the width; the curve does not. The band width each charge picks, averaged over 150 draws of 120 rows. The two conventions — a unit a lag and half a log n a lag — pick 6.08 and 3.65 lags. The four charges derived from the measured optimism pick 15.05, 15.60, 15.47 and 15.44, against a best width on the draw of 14.13. So the scale a charge is levied on moves the width by a factor of 4.27 and the shape of the charge moves it by 3.6%. None of the six is an estimate of the draw's own best width: the correlations are -0.006, -0.003, 0.017, -0.001, 0.016, -0.004.

What a better charge buys

Four charges derived from the same measurements pick band widths within six per cent of each other and deliver errors within two per cent of the gap any of them leaves. The scale a charge is levied on decides the width; the shape of the charge decides nothing.

curve · Criterion The same dial, on a list that steps by one. The probability that a per-candidate tuning list changes which candidate the table selects, at each of 5 separations, for both tuning parameters at a matched list length of 8. The sieve order runs from 13.1% to 2.6%, a factor of 5.00; the whitening window, from 16.4% to 1.5%, a factor of 11.75. What is held is the number of options, the table, the law, the sample size and the seeds; what cannot be held is the size of a step, since an integer step and a geometric step are different amounts of change. The dial moves both, and it moves them by 2.35 times as much on one as on the other.

A step that is not a ratio

Run the separation sweep on a tuning list of integers rather than a geometric ladder and the two factors still point opposite ways. The invariant does not survive: along a row of integers the probability moves by 2.163 where along the geometric ladder it moves by 1.208.

turnover · Order-selection Reading the draw changes what is charged, not what is tracked. The correlation between the band width each rule picks and the best band width on the same draw, over 400 draws. The three fixed charges read -0.069, -0.066, 0.012. The three that read the sample read -0.012, -0.019, -0.041. None of the six is distinguishable from nothing. The statistic the first plug-in reads does vary — the draw's own summed squared autocorrelation runs from 2.06 to 10.19 with a mean of 4.36 — so the failure is not that the charge stopped moving. It is that what it moves with carries no information about which width this draw wanted.

A charge that reads the draw

Three charges built to read the sample track the best band width on their own draw at −0.012, −0.019 and −0.041, deliver more error than the fixed rule they are calibrated to, and pick a width half again as variable. The statistic moves; the answer does not.

curve · Criterion

Named alongside it

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

Information criterionModel selectionWhiteningSelection effectBandwidth selectionMonte CarloNuisance parameterDependenceTuning parameterOverfittingCovariance matrixTapering

All concepts