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

Every essay — page 15

Essays 337 to 360 of 436, in the same order.

The diagnostic after the trial

The test for whether a balanced-assignment walk can reach the whole admissible set is run on a covariate function, before any outcome exists. Run instead on the difference in arm means it is the same test — under the sharp null the outcome is a fixed column — and it is about the statistic the p-value is actually built from. Two findings: an outcome is a probe nobody chose, and on a set that is genuinely split three in ten of them see nothing at all; and the published two-sided p-value is exactly right on half a reference distribution, while a one-sided one is not.

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

Half a reference distribution

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

8 figures · Reference, part 11 Where the set stops being one set. How many of the 3,432 equal splits of fourteen units a balancing rule admits, as the tolerance tightens, with the number of components single swaps leave it in. The set falls from 886 to 84 assignments, and somewhere in that fall it stops being connected: at 0.8 it is in 2 pieces and every assignment's complement is in the other one. Nothing about the rule changes at that point and nothing a chain reports changes either, which is the whole difficulty — the acceptance rate, the stationary distribution and the detailed balance are all in order on both sides of it.

Before the trial and after

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

9 figures · Assignment, part 10

The other half of the dependence

What a balancing rule can remove of an interaction was measured across six marginals with one joint law of the ranks held fixed. Change the copula instead and the two exact zeros come apart for two different reasons. A median split's zero is arithmetic — a centred median split squares to a quarter identically — and holds under every copula there is. A mean's zero needs the copula to be symmetric under reflection as well as the covariate to be symmetric: it is exactly nothing under a Gaussian, t or Frank copula and 7.71% under a Clayton, at the same rank correlation and with a normal covariate throughout.

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.

8 figures · Criterion, part 14 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.

7 figures · Criterion, part 15 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.

8 figures · Criterion, part 16

A block length chosen from the data

Two block windows were compared at each window's own best block length, which is the argmin of a quantity that needs the truth. Re-run on rules a practitioner could actually run, the ordering reverses: the taper wins at the best available length and at one estimated from the sample's own persistence, and the rectangle wins at a length written into a protocol and at the rule of thumb, at every sample size measured. And the whole argument is a third of the size of what estimating the length costs.

Three rules and a target none of them is aimed at. Which block length each rule picks, over 400 samples of 120 rows, for the tapered window. Two of the rules are points: a length written into a protocol is 8.00 on every draw and the rule of thumb is 4.00, because n to the one third does not read the data at all. The plug-in reads the sample's own persistence and lands at 14.36 with a standard deviation of 2.93. The length that would actually have been best on that draw averages 24.57 with a standard deviation of 16.23 and runs from 10 to 48 between its tenth and ninetieth percentiles. The target moves five times as much as the best estimate of it does, which is why no rule can be close to it and why the two that do not try are not merely worse — they are somewhere else.

The length nobody has

Every comparison of block windows in this collection is made at each window's own best block length. That length has a standard deviation of sixteen across draws and averages twenty-five. No rule is aimed at it.

8 figures · Bootstrap, part 15 Which window is better depends on who chose the block length. The margin between a rectangular block and a tapered one, on 400 samples of 120 rows, under four rules for choosing the block length. At the length that would actually have been best on each draw the taper is ahead by 2.12 points of a 35.8% error, at 22.1 paired standard errors; at a length estimated from the sample's own persistence it is ahead by 1.89. At the length this field's own figures use — eight — the rectangle is ahead by 2.04, and at the rule of thumb by 4.54. Every rule sees the same draws. What separates them is the length: the two rules that lose to the rectangle pick 4.00 and 8.00 where the best available is 24.57, and a tapered window at a quarter of the right length has thrown away most of what it was weighting.

An ordering that depends on the rule

The tapered block beats the rectangular one at the best available block length and at one estimated from the data. At a length written into a protocol, and at the rule of thumb, the rectangle wins — at every sample size measured.

8 figures · Bootstrap, part 16 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.

8 figures · Bootstrap, part 17

A charge for a covariance's own dimension

The two charges that pick a band's width were derived for a regression coefficient, and a band's numbers are neither free nor entered the same way. Measured as an optimism against a second independent sample, a Bartlett band costs 0.374 of a log-likelihood unit a lag where a criterion charges one. The window's own weights are the mechanism — scale them and the charge scales with them, to within two per cent across three windows — and they are not the arithmetic: the level is three quarters of the sum, a different shape at the same sum costs more, and the charge rises with the law's persistence. Levying the right one moves every width in the table by a factor of four and the error by half a per cent.

The area under the window is what the band actually costs. The three windows' weight sequences at a width of 30 lags, drawn against the lag as a share of the window. A truncated window applies a weight of one to every lag inside it and zero outside, which is why its sum is the width and why every conventional charge is right for it — and it is a covariance matrix on almost no sample, so it cannot be used. The Bartlett window falls linearly to zero and its weights sum to exactly 15.000000000000004, which is half the width, at every width: Σ(1 − k/(L+1)) over k = 1 … L is L − L/2. The Parzen window sums to 11.13 here, three eighths of the width, and it gets there by holding a weight near one over the first few lags and then falling faster. A plug-in estimate multiplied by a weight below one is a shrunk estimate, and a shrunk estimate is worth less than a free one — which is the whole of why a charge levied per lag is a charge for parameters the window has already spent.

The charge nobody derived

A band of lags is charged one log-likelihood unit apiece, because that is what a regression coefficient costs. A band's numbers are not regression coefficients, and measuring what they actually cost puts the convention out by a factor of nearly three.

4 figures · Criterion, part 12 Four windows, one line, and one that is off it. The optimism measured for each window at a band of 30 lags, against what that window's weights sum to, on 2000 pairs of independent samples of 120 rows. The diagonal is where a window that spent exactly its summed weights would sit. Three of the points are one shape at three levels — the Bartlett window, its square and its cube, whose sums stand in the ratio 6 : 4 : 3 — and they lie on a line through the origin at 0.767 of the diagonal, with 0.033 between the highest and the lowest. Scaling the weights scales the charge by the factor the weights predict, which is what makes the weights the mechanism. The Parzen window has a comparable sum and a different shape, and it sits at 0.871: its weights stay near one over the first few lags, and the first few lags are where the information is. A weight sum treats every lag as equally informative and no sample does.

What a window leaves free

A Bartlett window's weights sum to exactly half its width, which is a candidate for what the band costs. Varying the weights without varying anything else says the weights are the mechanism; varying the shape at the same weight says they are not the arithmetic.

5 figures · Criterion, part 13 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.

4 figures · Criterion, part 14

The rate and the size of a disagreement

A sweep of what it costs to let every candidate choose its own tuning parameter reported a product and called it a cost. Separated — and the decomposition is exact, because a draw on which nothing disagreed carries exactly zero — the rate rises by half across the list and what a disagreement is worth does not move at all. A third quantity explains why: a disagreement costs something only when it changes which candidate the table selects, that happens on about an eighth of draws, and the eighth does not depend on the list.

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.

4 figures · Order-selection, part 12 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.

3 figures · Order-selection, part 13 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.

4 figures · Order-selection, part 14

Two searches over different features

A break search and a window search on one sample manufacture less likelihood together than separately, and both read the same residual series. Put four more pairs beside them on a scale whose zero is two searches over independent columns and whose one is a search that contains the other, and the shortfall is a property of the pair: 0.00 for the control, 0.76 for the pair that reads one series twice, exactly 1 for containment — and −0.31 for a break paired with an independent column, where charging the two separately under-charges rather than over-charging.

How much of one search the other has already found. Five pairs of searches on one sample, on a scale whose zero and one are both fixed by construction. Zero is two searches over disjoint sets of independent columns: they remove shares of the residual sum that add, at 0.8 standard errors from exactly additive, and they read 0.004. One is a break search paired with a step column it contains, which reads exactly one on every draw because the step adds nothing at all. Between them: two dictionaries of step columns cut a few rows apart read 0.125, and the pair the earlier field measured — a break and a whitening window, both reading the same residual series — reads 0.762, three quarters of the way to one search containing the other. And below zero, a break paired with a search over independent columns reads -0.306: the joint search finds configurations neither half of it contains, so charging the two separately under-charges.

Two searches that share nothing

Two searches over independent columns remove shares of the residual sum that add exactly. On the scale a chi-square point is quoted on they look super-additive by a fifth of a unit, and none of it is overlap.

4 figures · Criterion, part 12 What the second search finds, alone and afterwards. For four of the pairs, what the second search removes on its own and what it removes once the first has already run. The gap between the two is the overlap in absolute terms. Where the searches share nothing the two readings are the same: an independent column removes 0.0261 alone and 0.0260 afterwards. Where one contains the other they are 0.1387 and exactly zero. The pair the earlier field measured sits between: a whitening window removes 0.5033 alone and 0.3120 after a break search has run. This is the earlier field's own reading of its pair, on the share scale rather than in log-likelihood units, and it is the number a rule that runs both searches actually has to charge for.

A search that is already the other

A break search shifts every coefficient after a row, so a step column is one of the directions it can move in. Paired with a dictionary of them it reads exactly one, on every draw, and that fixes the top of the scale.

3 figures · Criterion, part 13 The ladder is the same ladder under every law. Each pair's overlap under each of the four laws, over 400 draws apiece. The scale is fixed at both ends by construction: two searches over disjoint sets of independent columns read -0.001, 0.013, -0.002, 0.004, and a break search paired with a step column it already contains reads exactly one under every law. Between them the pair that reads one residual series twice runs 0.763, 0.805, 0.577, 0.752 — lowest under long memory, where a whitening has most to do and the break search has least left to find that the whitening has not taken. The rung that moves most is the pair of step dictionaries, from -0.148 under a moving average to 0.419 under a break; and the pair that is negative is negative under all four.

Three quarters of the way to one search

The pair that started this reads 0.762 on a scale whose one is containment. And the pair that shares nothing but its response reads −0.306, so the sign the earlier field found does not transport at all.

4 figures · Criterion, part 14

A probe chosen rather than picked

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. Projecting the probe off that span costs one least-squares fit and triples the separation it carries; choosing the direction from the design's own leverage is worth another factor of four over a random one; and the projection-pursuit direction the argument invites is worse than random. On a short chain the raw probe misses 44% of the sets that are split and the projected one misses 12%.

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.

4 figures · Randomisation, part 12 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.

3 figures · Randomisation, part 13 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.

4 figures · Randomisation, part 14

Both halves of the dependence at once

One field varies the marginal with the copula held Gaussian and another varies the copula with the marginal held normal, and the natural guess is that the two leaks compound. They do not add in either direction: eleven of twenty cells cancel and nine compound, a mildly skewed covariate under a lower-tail copula leaks 0.002% where adding the two gives 16.6%, and a heavy-tailed symmetric covariate that leaks exactly nothing on its own doubles what an asymmetric copula leaks. A median split's zero survives all thirty combinations at under 10⁻¹⁶.

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.

4 figures · Adjustment, part 12 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%.

4 figures · Adjustment, part 13 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.

3 figures · Adjustment, part 14 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.

3 figures · Adjustment, part 15

FieldsThreadsSeriesConceptsFigure librarySearch