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

The thread: The symptom is absence

The defects that survive longest are the ones with nothing to look at. A balancing rule that removes exactly none of an interaction, a walk that is uniform on half a reference distribution for ever, a criterion that never sees the term it is missing: each of them passes every check that asks whether what is there is right, because the failure is that something is not.
The profile a break point is chosen from. One sample of 120 rows under a break in the persistence, fitted as two first-order regimes at every admissible break point. The maximum is at row 78, where the true break is at 60. The shaded band is every break point within two log-likelihood units of the best one — 8 of the 73 positions searched, which is 11% of the range. The horizontal line is the one-regime fit the search is compared against; the whole profile is above it, at every position, which is the point: a maximum over 73 candidates is above the null by construction and not by evidence. Paying for a search

A break that was looked for

A two-regime whitening finds its change point by maximising a profile, and then reads a criterion that counts parameters. Under no break there is no parameter to count, because every position describes the same model.

 Where the general fit becomes the parametric one. The band family's objective at the autoregression's own geometric sequence, cut off at each width, on one sample of 60 rows. The horizontal line is the profile likelihood the parametric fit maximises, written independently through a different whitening. At the full width the two are the same number to 3e-14, which is what says the general construction contains the parametric one rather than resembling it. Below 10 lags there is no line at all: the geometric sequence cut off short is not a covariance matrix, so the objective has nothing to evaluate. Between the two the truncation is briefly above the parametric likelihood — a wrong covariance can fit one sample better than the right one, which is the whole reason a width has to be charged for rather than chosen. A covariance with no parameter

A family before a fit

A regression's coefficients and one correlation can be maximised together. Replace the correlation with an estimated covariance and there is nothing left for "jointly" to mean — until a set of covariances is named, and the set turns out not to contain the truth.

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

A test rather than a survey

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

 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. How long the list is

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.

 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. A block length chosen from the data

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.

 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. A probe chosen rather than picked

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.

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

The statistic the p-value is about

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

 The first stage an instrument needs is set by the violation nobody can see. The error each estimator converges on when the instrument has a direct effect of 0.05 on the outcome — a path the exclusion restriction asserts is zero and no sample can check. The instrument's error is δ/π exactly, so it is the reciprocal of the very quantity that made the method work: 1.0000 at a first stage of 0.05 and 0.0833 at 0.60. Least squares carries the confounding instead, at 0.3440 at a first stage of 0.30. The two cross at π = 0.1389, and the crossing is exactly δ times 2.7778 — the first stage an instrument needs is proportional to the violation it is assumed not to have, and below that line the method being corrected is the better estimator. A variable that moves one thing only

The assumption nothing tests

An instrument buys a causal effect with an assumption no sample can check, and the price is set by the same quantity that made the method work. The first stage it needs is 2.7778 times the violation it is assumed not to have, so a direct effect of 0.05 demands a first stage of 0.1389 and least squares wins below it.

 A weight that balances, and one that unbalances. The standardised difference between the arms on each covariate, integrated over the population rather than counted in a sample. Unweighted, the arms differ by 0.8310 on the first covariate and 0.6015 on the second, which is what makes the raw difference of arm means 2.7102 against a true average effect of 1.0000. Weighting each unit by one over its own assignment probability removes both differences exactly — -2.78e-17 and -5.69e-19, which is machine precision and not a small number — because the weighted density of the treated arm is the population's own whatever the propensity is. Weighting by a score fitted without the second covariate balances the first to 0.0035 and pushes the second out to 0.7057, further apart than doing nothing. Weighting one sample into another

A score that balances

Weighting each unit by one over its own assignment probability drives the standardised difference between the arms from 0.8310 to 2.8×10⁻¹⁷ — exactly, not nearly. A score fitted without the second covariate leaves that covariate at 0.7057, further apart than doing nothing at all.

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

A probe nobody chose

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

 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. Two searches over different features

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.

 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. Both halves of the dependence at once

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%.

 How much memory a fit takes out, candidate by candidate. Under AR(1) at 0.8, the lag-one autocorrelation a candidate's residuals report, computed exactly for each candidate on 200 draws. The upper line is the law at 0.8000. A candidate that is an intercept alone reports 0.7773 — which is exactly what a sample of 120 errors reports, because an intercept annihilates the sample mean and nothing else, and the two arithmetics agree to the last bit. Every predictor after that takes more out, down to 0.7341 at the fullest candidate. That is the collision this field is about: the rule every whitening here uses estimates its nuisance once, from the fullest candidate, so that the criteria stay comparable — and the fullest candidate is the one whose residuals report the least. Fitted together, or fitted after

The fit that takes the memory out

A candidate's residuals report less dependence than its errors do, and how much less is arithmetic rather than noise. The rule used for a good reason reads the series that has lost the most.

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

The statistic that changes sign

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

 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 other half of the dependence

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.

 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. How long the list is

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.

 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. A charge for a covariance's own dimension

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.

 One distribution, two effects. Three causal structures fitted to one covariance matrix over a treatment, a covariate and an outcome. Each reproduces it exactly — the largest entry-wise disagreement across all three is 4.4e-16 — so no sample of any size distinguishes them. The regression of the outcome on the treatment and the covariate returns 0.500 in all three, to within 4.4e-16, because that coefficient is a function of the covariance and of nothing else. The effect the three worlds hold is 0.500, 0.848 and 0.848: adjusting is exactly right in the first and off by −0.348 in the other two. The arithmetic cannot see the difference and the difference is the whole question. What conditioning on a variable does

The two worlds that look the same

Three causal structures were fitted to one covariance matrix and agree with it to 4.4·10⁻¹⁶. The regression returns 0.5000 under all three; the effect they hold is 0.5000, 0.8481 and 0.8481. What separates structures is a missing edge, and the signature of one is a correlation of exactly zero.

 What a longer list actually changes. How often the fifteen 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. How long the list is

A list is not a rule

How often fifteen 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.

 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 charge for a covariance's own dimension

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.

 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. The diagnostic after the trial

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.

 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. A covariance with no parameter

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.

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

The cut that is not a quantile

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

 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. A probe chosen rather than picked

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.

 The threshold buys accuracy and spends exceedances. The mean squared error of the estimated shape against the threshold, split into the square of its bias and its spread, over 600 records of 2000 readings from a a normal parent. At the 0.9 quantile 199 exceedances are left, the bias is -0.1708, the spread is 0.0701 and the total error is 0.0341. The bias falls as the threshold rises because the exceedances get closer to being generalised Pareto; the spread rises because there are fewer of them. The sum is smallest at the 0.925 quantile, at 0.0340, of which 80.6% is still bias — so even the best threshold on this grid is one where accuracy, not spread, is the binding constraint. The tail past the last observation

The threshold is a dial

A peaks-over-threshold analysis has one knob, and raising it buys accuracy with exceedances. For a normal parent the error is smallest at the 0.925 quantile and 80.6% of it is still bias there — and both diagnostics practitioners use to set the knob lose to a fixed 0.90 rule, one by a factor of 1.590 and one by 11.881.

 Six forecasters, all calibrated, not equally useful. The resolution of six forecasters that are all perfectly calibrated, each reporting the true probability of the event given a signal that carries more or less of the latent state. The largest reliability anywhere in the family is 2.0e-33, so a calibration check passes every one of them. They are not equally good: resolution runs from exactly 0.00 for the forecaster that issues the base rate every time to 0.092758 for the one that sees everything, and their Brier scores run from 0.234237 — which is the world's own uncertainty, and the score of a table of base rates — to 0.141479. Calibration is a necessary condition that a constant forecast satisfies exactly. A forecast that is a probability

Calibrated and useless

Six forecasters that are calibrated to 2·10⁻³³ run from resolution exactly 0 to 0.092758, and three forecasters with reliabilities from 0 to 0.013025 have areas under the ROC curve identical to every bit a double carries. Each measure is exactly blind to what the other one sees.

 The estimator has no upper bound on what it costs. What a thinning overlap does to a stabilised inverse-probability estimate of an average effect of 1.0000, over 600 samples of 600 at each of six settings. The spread rises from 0.1965 to 0.8122 and the root mean square error from 0.1964 to 0.9219, so at the thin end the error is very nearly the whole of the quantity being estimated. The lower line is the share of the arm's weighted total the single largest observation owns, averaged over the same draws: 0.69% to 9.78%, and in the worst single draw of the sweep 82.75%. Coverage of the 95% interval goes from 93.7% to 55.5%. Weighting one sample into another

The region with no comparison

A trimmed interval covers the average effect over everybody 90.8% of the time at six hundred rows and 41.0% at nine thousand six hundred, while covering the average effect over the units it kept 94.3% and 96.0% throughout. An interval that gets worse as the sample grows is an interval about something else.

 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. What a diagnostic plot is showing

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.

 What a second break adds. Over 200 draws, the likelihood ratio a search over one break point reports, and how much more a search over an ordered pair adds on top of it. Under AR(1) at 0.8, which has no break at all, the first search manufactures 5.697 and the second adds 4.278. Under a law with exactly one break — where a second one is as absent as the first was in the row above — the first search reports 9.442 and the second still adds 5.800. Searching for something that is not there costs the same whether or not something else was there to find. Paying for a search

A second break on a flat profile

Searching a hundred and twenty rows for one change point manufactures five units of likelihood. Searching for a second manufactures four more, on a series that has at most one — and on a profile whose whole range is under seven.

 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. Fitted together, or fitted after

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.

 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. The diagnostic after the trial

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.

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

The diagnostic at two hundred

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

 Where the taper's case begins, and it is not where the algebra says. The block length at which a trapezoidal block's implied variance stops being more biased than a rectangular one's, against the length of the sample. Computed exactly — from the law's own autocovariances, with no sampling in it — the answer is 19.2 and does not depend on the sample at all. What a sample of 120 rows reports is 13.3, and the reported crossing walks out towards the exact one as the sample grows: 13.3, 15.0, 16.4, 18.0. The mechanism is that the autocovariances the window is applied to are themselves attenuated, worst at the longest lags, and the window that discards those lags loses less of them. Where a taper's case begins

The error no window repairs

Every block window's best estimate of a long-run variance is wrong by about forty per cent at a hundred and twenty rows, and the largest part of that is not a bias at all. Choosing the window moves a twentieth of it.

 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. Both halves of the dependence at once

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.

 A covariate that is prior to everything and still ruins it. A covariate measured before the treatment, caused by neither the treatment nor the outcome, and not a common cause of them. Two unmeasured variables sit behind it: one reaches the treatment, the other reaches the outcome, and both reach the covariate. Every rule of thumb for including a baseline variable is satisfied, and the regression that leaves the covariate out estimates the treatment's effect of 0.50 without bias, while the regression that includes it is off by −0.2000 — because the covariate is a common effect of the two unmeasured causes, and conditioning on a common effect makes its causes dependent. The path it opens runs from the treatment back through the first unmeasured cause, through the covariate, and out through the second to the outcome. What conditioning on a variable does

A collider before the treatment

A covariate measured before the treatment, on no causal path, and not a common cause of anything, still biases the estimate by exactly −0.2000 against an effect of 0.5 — while the regression that leaves it out is exact. The bias saturates at 0.3536, and the two paths that make it a collider do not appear in that bound.

 Six scores, one coverage. What each nonconformity score's interval covers, over 2000 draws with 200 calibration points, against the 95.0249% the rank argument promises. The column runs from 94.30% to 94.90%, a spread of 0.60% against a standard error of a difference of 0.69% — one number, six times. That includes a score aimed five units off the fit and a score that never reads the response at all, because the rank argument does not read the score either: it needs the scores exchangeable and nothing else. Every decision a modeller makes has to show up somewhere else, and the next two readings are where. Coverage without a distribution

The score is the modelling

Six nonconformity scores on the same draws cover within 0.60 points of each other, against a standard error of a difference of 0.69 — one number six times. Their widths run over a factor of 2.361 and their adaptivity over a factor of 8.377.

 Two worlds, one Kaplan–Meier curve, two truths. World A gives each subject a frailty with mean one and variance 1, and multiplies both its event hazard (0.35) and its dropout hazard (0.5) by it, so the subjects likeliest to leave are the ones likeliest to fail. World B has independent event and dropout times whose hazards are world A's crude hazards. Kaplan–Meier over 1000 studies of 400 gives the same curve from both — 0.7750 and 0.7763 at t = 1; 0.6627 and 0.6641 at t = 2; 0.5924 and 0.5932 at t = 3; 0.5047 and 0.5042 at t = 5 — and that curve is world B's truth, 0.5052 at t = 5. World A's truth is 0.3636 there. The dashed lines are the two bounds that assume nothing, from every dropout failing on leaving (0.1905 at t = 5) to none ever failing (0.6667). When the data stops early

A dropout the data cannot see

Two worlds leave the same record to the last detail a study can write down — the same times, the same share ending in the event, the same share leaving first — and a log-rank test between them rejects at its own 5% level at every sample size from a hundred to sixteen hundred. Kaplan–Meier converges on 0.5052 at t = 5 from both. The truth is 0.5052 in one and 0.3636 in the other, and what is left to argue about is where between two bounds to stand.

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

The verdicts watch the threshold, not the gap

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

 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. What a diagnostic plot is showing

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.

 The bottom ten of a league table of a hundred when larger groups do better, size–effect slope 0.6. Groups of 4 to 400, true effects rising with log size at a slope of 0.6 population widths. The true bottom ten is 80.6% small groups. Ranked by their own means the bottom ten holds 4.28 of the true ten; pooled to one centre, 3.19, with 42.6% small groups; pooled to a centre that rises with size, 4.35, with 83.0%. What partial pooling does to one group, to the set, and to a ranking

The small groups one centre protects

In a league table of a hundred groups where larger groups do better on average, pooling every group towards one centre overstates the small groups by half a population width — 0.501 — because it pulls them towards an average they are not part of. The top ten barely notices. The bottom ten, the list that flags poor performers, holds 3.19 of the true bottom ten when pooled to one centre and 4.28 when the groups are ranked by their own noisy means. Pooling towards a centre that rises with size restores 4.35 and puts the small groups back at the bottom where 80.6% of the true bottom ten sit.

 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. What a summary of a scatter is a property of

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.

 Every pair of sieve orders. Each cell is a tuning list of exactly two sieve orders, the row's and the column's, and its shade is how often fifteen candidate regressions choose different values from it, at a true null over 240 draws. Every pair holding order zero disagrees on no draw at all, because the criterion never picks zero under this law. Every adjacent pair of positive orders disagrees on between 17% and 25% of draws — 22.1% for one and two, 25.0% for eleven and twelve — and the rate falls as the two orders move apart, to 5.0% for one and twelve. The largest cell is 25.0%. How long the list is

Two values the criterion cannot tell apart

Fifteen candidates disagree about a whitening's order on two draws in five when the list holds all thirteen orders — and on more than one in five when it holds only one and two. Every adjacent pair of positive orders disagrees about as often as that pair does, and every pair holding an order the criterion never picks disagrees on none. A list's disagreement is set by the pairs of values on it that the criterion cannot tell apart, not by how many values it has, and one candidate's own doubt about its pick predicts all fifteen candidates' disagreement with a rank correlation of 0.96.

 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. A probe chosen rather than picked

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.

 What a lag of band costs, as the sample grows. The optimism one more lag of a Bartlett band adds, measured by fitting on one sample and scoring on an independent one, 2,400 pairs at each size, with two standard errors: 0.3745 ± 0.0176 at 120 rows, 0.3842 ± 0.0266 at 240 rows, 0.4523 ± 0.0392 at 480 rows, 0.4022 ± 0.0563 at 960 rows. The window's summed weights give one half a lag and the convention charges one. A charge for a covariance's own dimension

The charge at four times the sample

A band of lags is charged a full unit apiece and is worth about three eighths of one at a hundred and twenty rows. The field's last essay said the error in that convention was harmless only because the error surface is flat, and that a steeper surface would give it a cost. A longer sample was the obvious place for one. It is not there: from 120 rows to 480 the error's spread across band widths falls by three quarters, and the derived charge's advantage over the convention falls from 5.5 standard errors to 1.7. What the sample does move is the charge itself, from 0.37 of a unit a lag towards the half a unit the window's weights predict.

 The same error, caught or invisible, by how it is arranged. The overidentification test's rejection rate against the error the violation actually puts into the estimate, so the two rows are the same estimate being equally wrong. With the whole violation on one instrument the test keeps its size at 5.0% under the null and reaches 86.4% by an error of 0.800. With both instruments violating in the same ratio as their first stages the two Wald ratios are identical, the test has nothing to compare, and it rejects at 5.8% at that same error — its own size. Over 1000 draws of 300 rows at each setting, at a nominal 5.0%. The test is a comparison between instruments and it was never a check on either. A variable that moves one thing only

Two instruments that disagree

The overidentification test keeps its size at 5.0% and reaches 86.4% power against a violation carried by one instrument. Against the same error carried by both in proportion to their first stages it rejects on 4.6% of draws — its own size — while the estimate is wrong by 0.3000, which is 94.2% of the confounding the instruments were brought in to remove.

 The price of insurance is noise, not coverage. What a robust standard error costs under a constant error variance — the case where the model-based one is exactly right — at five sample sizes over 20000 draws at the small end. It is not coverage: the leave-one-out interval read against a t on n − 2 covers 95.52% at 20 rows against the model-based 95.06%. It is a wider interval, by a factor of 1.0689 at 20 rows falling to 1.0049 at 250, and it is a variance estimate 2.57 times as variable at 20 rows and 1.85 times at 250 — against a denominator that is exactly V²·2/(n − 2), so only the numerator is counted. The uncorrected estimate is the cheaper of the two at small samples and the dearer at large: 1.31 against 1.76. A standard error for a model that is wrong

Right for the wrong reason

A robust standard error costs no coverage where the risk is absent — 95.52% against 95.06% at twenty rows. It costs a 6.89% wider interval and a variance estimate 2.572 times as variable, and the pre-test that would avoid paying recovers 15.9% of what the insurance is worth.

 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. Regression, and what the summary hides

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.

 The squared estimate 1 standard errors from the flat point, exact and linearised. At δ = √n·μ/σ = 1 the exact law of the squared estimate has mean 2.00, variance 6.00 and skewness 2.177; the delta method's normal has mean 1.00, variance 4.00, no skewness, and 30.85% of its mass below zero, where a square cannot go. The Kolmogorov distance between them is 0.3085. The distribution itself

Where the derivative is zero

The delta method reads a standard error off a tangent line, and at a flat point the tangent says the spread is zero. The interval built on it for a squared mean covers 99.991% there and 85.978% one and a half standard errors away, with nearly every miss on the same side — and the law it should have used is a χ², not a normal.

 Coverage against the expected count of the interval whose coin is read from the arrival times. The randomised interval for a Poisson mean, with its coin read from where in the window the events fell, covers exactly 97.5% at every expected count between 0.025 and ln 40 = 3.689 and exactly 95% past it, when a count of zero is given the exact interval's [0, ln 40]; its worst is 95.00%. Given mid-p's [0, ln 20] instead, it falls to 92.50% just past 3.00. Mid-p itself reaches 91.66% at 3.03; the exact interval never falls below 95.62% and averages well above 95%. A proportion's interval near the boundary, and the coin

The coin a clock supplies

A count observed over a window comes with the times its events arrived, and given the count those times are uniform whatever the rate is — so they are a coin with a continuum of faces at every count from one up. Used to randomise the interval for a Poisson mean, they leave exactly one count without a coin, the count of zero, and what that count is given decides everything: mid-p's limit of ln 20 leaves a hole at 92.5%, and the exact interval's ln 40 is the shortest limit that leaves none, after which the interval covers exactly 97.5% below an expected count of 3.69 and exactly 95% above it.

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

A median with ties

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

 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 probe chosen rather than picked

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.

 Past the cap, long memory's surface is flat. The prediction error at every band width from four lags to eighty, above the lowest on the extended list, under long memory at d = 4/9 at three sample sizes, 600 draws each. At 120 rows the floor is at 12 lags and eighty is 0.0039 above it. At 480 the floor is at 30 lags and every width from twenty-four to eighty is within 0.0003 of it. At 960 it is at 48 and thirty to eighty lags are within 0.0000. The dashed line is the list's cap: the surface does not rise behind it, it levels off. A charge for a covariance's own dimension

A cap that decides nothing

Every band-width list this field priced stopped at thirty lags, and long memory at a large sample is the one dependence whose best band wants to be wider. At 960 rows it does: the draw's own best width lies past the cap on 48.7% of draws. Lift the cap to eighty and the measured charge follows, from 28 lags to 46 — and the error moves by two ten-thousandths, in the wrong direction and inside its standard error, because the surface behind the cap is flat. The field's last conditional fails where it had its best chance.

 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. What a chain cannot report

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.

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

After the mirror is gone

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

 What a quarrel between two orders costs. Every two-value list of autoregressive orders from one to twelve, read on the same 2400 draws of a first-order autoregression at a hundred and twenty rows: each cell is the average regret of choosing the order per candidate rather than once for the table, on the draws where the fifteen candidates disagree about it. The cost grows away from the diagonal and stays level along it. Next to the diagonal, a quarrel between neighbouring orders costs 0.00126 for one and two and 0.00088 for eleven and twelve; four orders apart it costs 0.00803 and 0.00802; eleven apart, 0.02436. Every list holding order zero is left off because the candidates never disagree about one. How long the list is

A quarrel's cost is its width

When fifteen candidate regressions disagree about a whitening's autoregressive order, the disagreement costs in proportion to how far apart the two orders are — 0.0027 of regret for every order of distance, a line that explains 96% of the cost across sixty-six pairs — and not at all by which orders they are: a quarrel between eleven and twelve costs what one between one and two costs, though one of those holds the truth. Fitted on pairs, the line predicts every longer list's cost. The window's quarrels follow no such line.

 The exceedances arrive together. 300 steps of a max-autoregression with dependence 0.75, drawn on a logarithmic scale because its marginal has no variance. The rule marks the 0.9 quantile: 30 of the 300 readings are above it and they fall into 5 clusters, the largest holding 11. The mean cluster holds 6.000, and its reciprocal — 0.167 — is the runs estimator of the extremal index, whose true value for this process is exactly 1 − 0.75 = 0.25. Every threshold method in the collection assumes exceedances are independent pieces of information; here 30 of them are 5. The tail past the last observation

The clustering the tail has

Every threshold method counts exceedances as though they were independent pieces of information, and in a dependent series they arrive in clusters. Ignoring that overstates a return level by the reciprocal of the extremal index — ×3.527 counted where the mean cluster holds four — and leaves a reported standard error 2.151 times too small.

 An estimate reported as a function of an assumption. What the slope really is, against a shift in the outcomes nobody saw — line from the closed form, dots counted over 2000 studies of 200 rows at 35.0% missing. Every point on this line produces exactly the same observed data, and the complete-case estimate is the flat line at 0.5996 regardless. The truth moves at -0.2845 per unit of shift, which is a function of the missingness model and the missing fraction and of nothing that can be estimated: across the swept range the true slope runs from 0.8845 to 0.3155, a span of 0.5691 against a value of 0.60 in the world where the shift is zero. Reporting the line is the honest form of the answer. The value that is not there

The mechanism the data cannot see

Two worlds produce identical covariates, identical patterns of what is recorded and identical recorded outcomes, to the last bit. Their true slopes are 0.6 and 0.315452, and the truth moves at 0.284548 per unit of an assumption nothing in the data can inform.

 The two standardised means, and the shape of Fieller's set for their ratio at a = 3, d = 1. Each dot is one pair (zx, zy) drawn around (3, 1). Outside the horizontal band |zy| > 1.96 Fieller's set is a bounded interval, with probability 17.01%; inside the band and outside the disc of radius 1.96 it is everything outside an interval, 75.03%; inside the disc it is the whole line, 7.96%. On 40,000 counted draws Fieller covers ρ = 3.00 95.21% of the time and the delta interval 82.48%. The distribution itself

A ratio whose interval has to be the whole line

The delta interval for a ratio of two means covers 95.61% when the denominator is eight standard errors from zero and 1.10% at a ten-thousandth of one, and ten times as wide it still covers only 3.48%. Linearising is not the fault. Gleser and Hwang proved that every interval that is always finite fails the same way, so an interval that keeps its promise has to be the whole line some of the time.

 Estimating P(Z > 5) = 2.8665×10⁻⁷ with plain draws and with four proposals. One seed each. Plain simulation draws nothing past 5 in 100,000 and estimates zero throughout. At 100,000 draws the proposal N(5, 1) reads 1.009 of the truth, N(9, 1) 1.041, N(4.5, 0.25²) 1.039 and N(5, 0.3²) 1.008. Values above 2.2 are drawn at the top edge. What makes it checkable

The draws aimed at the tail

The chance a standard normal exceeds 5 is 2.8665×10⁻⁷, and a plain simulation needs 349 million draws to estimate it to within ten per cent. Draws aimed at the tail and weighted back need 565. Aimed slightly too narrowly, the same method has an infinite variance, an interval that covers 86.0% and gets worse with more draws, and an effective sample size that reads healthier than a proposal that works.

 Weights that balance a sample by construction. What three sets of weights leave of the standardised difference between the arms on each covariate, as a root mean square over 1200 samples of 600 units. The true propensity leaves 0.1317 and 0.1186 — a sampling error, since it is right about the population and knows nothing of the draw. A likelihood fit leaves 0.0770 and 0.0657, having absorbed part of the draw's imbalance as a side effect of fitting the treatment. Weights fitted so that each arm's weighted means are the sample's leave 1.4e-14 and 1.2e-14, which is the arithmetic's floor rather than a small number: the largest gap between a weighted arm mean and the sample mean in any draw is 9.8e-14. Weighting one sample into another

A weight fitted to balance

Weights fitted so that each arm's weighted covariate means equal the sample's leave a difference of 1.4×10⁻¹⁴ between the arms and give the estimate a third of the variance of weights fitted by likelihood — 0.011883, within a relative 5.8% of the bound no estimator can beat. In the world where the assignment carries a square nobody named, the same exact balance leaves the square further apart than no weighting at all, and where the outcome carries it too the estimate is wrong by 0.6973 with an interval that covers 1.5%.

 What a variance estimated from K units is worth. The between-unit mean square is a scaled chi-square on K − 1 degrees of freedom, so the estimator's whole distribution is decided by the number of units. At two units its interquartile range spans a factor of 13.03 and its ten-to-ninety range a factor of 171.3, and it comes out exactly zero on 26.7% of studies. The closed form and 3,000 simulated studies agree to 0.051 at every quantile. Hierarchy past one number

A level with two units

A variance estimated from two units is a scaled chi-square on one degree of freedom. Its interquartile range spans a factor of thirteen, its ten-to-ninety range a factor of a hundred and seventy-one, and it comes out exactly zero on 26.7% of studies — so the design effect it decides runs from 1.00 to 7.01 against a truth of 4.69.

 Five treatments of an estimate above one, φ = 0.95, n = 25. The correction exceeds one on 31.1% of series at this setting. left where it lands: squared forecast error 12.828, average decay factor 0.7974 against a true 0.7351; capped at 0.995: squared forecast error 5.680, average decay factor 0.5950 against a true 0.7351; capped at 1 − 1/n: squared forecast error 5.535, average decay factor 0.5256 against a true 0.7351; correction scaled to fit: squared forecast error 5.535, average decay factor 0.5256 against a true 0.7351; correction refused where it leaves: squared forecast error 5.868, average decay factor 0.4423 against a true 0.7351. Comparing two forecasters

The correction that leaves the region

The bias correction adds (1 + 3φ̂)/n whatever φ̂ is, so it pushes the estimate above one whenever φ̂ exceeds (n − 1)/(n + 3) — on 31.1% of series at φ = 0.95 and twenty-five observations. Five obvious things to do about it differ by a factor of 2.3 in squared forecast error, and none of them is documented as a choice.

 Coverage of an interval for a ratio of two rates against the expected total. The unconditional coverage of three intervals for the ratio of two Poisson rates, each built conditionally on the total and each reporting the whole of (0, ∞) when the total is zero, at the conditional proportion 0.5, against the expected total count. With the arrival times in both windows as the coin the interval covers exactly 95% plus a twentieth of e raised to minus the expected total: 96.84% at an expected total of one, 95.25% at three, 95.00% from about ten. The exact conditional interval covers 100.00%, 99.79%, 97.82% and 96.55% at forty; mid-p 99.11% at three and 95.89% at ten. A proportion's interval near the boundary, and the coin

Two windows and a ratio

Two counts from two windows give an interval for the ratio of their rates through the conditional binomial: given the total, the first window's count is binomial with a proportion that depends only on the ratio. The arrival times in both windows supply that binomial with a continuous coin at every total from one up, and the interval then covers exactly 95% plus a twentieth of the chance of no events at all. A total of zero can only report the whole of (0, ∞). And the exact conditional test's familiar conservatism is not the zero total's: the zero is the larger cause only while the expected total is below ln 2, and at an expected total of ten the exact interval still covers 97.8% for reasons that have nothing to do with it.

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

The zero that needed two

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

 One weighting told the means and one told the second moments, in five worlds. The bias of the fit to balance over 600 samples of 600 units in each world, fitted to the covariates' means and fitted to their means, squares and product. Told the means it is off by -0.0004, -0.0020, 0.0103, 0.6973, 0.2698 in the worlds with no square, a square in the assignment, a square in the outcome, a square in both and a cube in both; told the second moments, by -0.0009, -0.0000, 0.0009, -0.0045, 0.3099. Its interval covers 94.0%, 94.7%, 95.0%, 1.5%, 51.0% and 93.7%, 89.8%, 94.0%, 91.0%, 48.3%. Weighting one sample into another

The moments a balance is told

Weights fitted to balance the covariates' means were wrong by 0.6973 in the world where both the assignment and the outcome carry a square. Told the squares and the product as well, the same construction is off by −0.0045 there and its interval covers 91.0%. The failure moves up a moment rather than away: with a cube in both, the second-moment balance is off by 0.3099 and leaves the cube twice as far apart as no weighting. And where overlap is thin, 37.0% of samples have no such weights at all.

 A peak where the recorded data have none. The profile log-likelihood of a selection model in cy, the coefficient that lets the chance of being recorded depend on the outcome itself, for one study of 800 rows whose missingness is at random, with residuals normal; every other parameter is maximised at each fixed value. The model assumes the outcome is normal given the covariates. The curve peaks at cy = 0.35, where the fitted slope is 0.839, and the values of cy within the 95% cut run from −0.13 to 0.75; the likelihood-ratio statistic against cy = 0 is 1.47. The study was drawn with cy = 0.00. With the outcome's law left free, every value of cy fits the recorded rows equally well and this curve would be flat: its curvature is the normal assumption. The value that is not there

The assumption that identifies the mechanism

A selection model estimates how strongly an outcome decides whether it is recorded — the quantity two identical datasets showed no statistic can see — and it does so by assuming the outcome is normal. Where that holds and the outcome does decide, it repairs a slope complete cases put at 0.4318 to 0.5795. Where the missingness is at random and the residual is merely skewed, it reports selection that is not there, moves the slope from 0.5971 to 1.0319, and rejects missingness at random in 72.5% of studies.

 A prior worth 35 observations, moved across the range — truth 0.1, n = 20. The same prior weight centred at each of 33 places. Its interval covers 100.0% where the centre is near the truth and 0.0% at its worst, while the mean width where it covers least is 0.221 against a flat prior's 0.263 on the same data. The prior, doing visible work

When the prior is confident and wrong

A prior worth thirty-five observations, centred in the wrong place, produces a 95% interval that covers nothing at all — and reports a width 5% narrower than an honest one. It takes seventeen thousand observations to repair, not thirty-five, and the worst study to run is the one whose sample size equals the prior's weight, exactly.

 Twelve groups from two clusters, τ = 1. Every group's truth is in one of two clusters, and the population's total spread is exactly τ = 1, so the analysis recovers τ̂ = 1.515 and every shrinkage weight is what it would be for a single normal population. The estimates are pulled towards the grand mean, which is the middle of the gap — a place 0 of the 12 truths are and 6 of the estimates end up. Groups that borrow

One population, or two

Group effects from two clusters rather than one bell, with the same total spread. The analysis recovers the same population spread, uses the same weight for every group, and reports nothing unusual — while 46% of its estimates land in a region holding 6.6% of the truths.

 What one lost run costs a 16-run factorial fitting 11 coefficients. Every run is worth the same: dropping any one multiplies every coefficient's variance by 1.2000, which is 1 + 1/(N − p) with N = 16 and p = 11, and gives every pair of coefficients a correlation of 0.1667 where the complete design had exactly zero. Decided before the data

The run that did not happen

Lose one run from any orthogonal design and every coefficient's variance is multiplied by exactly 1 + 1/(N − p), and every pair of coefficients acquires a correlation of exactly 1/(N − p + 1) where there was none. The price is set by the design's spare capacity and by nothing else, and a saturated design cannot survive it at all.

 One of these converges and the other does not. Two measurements on the same fits, against the sample length, for a system with 2 genuine relations. The distance from the fitted plane to the true plane falls from 0.1438 at 100 observations to 0.0075 at 1600 — halving with each doubling, which is the 1/n rate this field's estimates converge at. The angle between the leading fitted relation and the leading generating one reads 29.6° and 29.0° at those same lengths, and is flat in between. The plane is an estimate; the relation inside it is not. Three series, and a count

A space is not a relation

The fitted plane approaches the true one at rate 1/n — 0.1438 at a hundred observations and 0.0075 at sixteen hundred. The angle between the leading fitted relation and the leading generating one reads 29.6° and 29.0° at those same lengths, and never moves.

 Three detectors for one departure, all at 5%. How often each of three checks on the calibration scores fires, against the size of the drift, with every critical value simulated under no drift so that all three sit at 5.0% exactly. The incumbent — a rank comparison of the first half of the scores against the second — reaches four-in-five power at a growth factor of 4.31. Reading each score's rank against its position reaches it at 2.65, and the largest running departure of the scores from their mean at 2.12. The ordering of the three is the ordering by how much of the sample's arrangement each one uses. Coverage without a distribution

A detector built for the ordering

The best of three checks for a drifting scale fires at half the growth factor the standard one needs — 2.12 against 4.31 — and still leaves 6.50 points of coverage gone before it does, against 0.51 for serial correlation. The reversal was not a property of the test.

 A proxy removes less than its reliability, always. The share of the confounding bias removed by adjusting for a proxy, against how well the proxy measures the confounder. The diagonal is the answer a reader would guess — a covariate that is 80% signal removes 80% of the problem. The curve is what the arithmetic gives: the reliability, times one minus the squared correlation between the treatment and the confounder, divided by one minus the product of those two. That squared correlation is 0.4475. A reliability of 0.8 removes 68.85% and one of 0.6 removes 45.32%. The two agree only at the ends, and the gap is widest where most applied covariates sit. What conditioning on a variable does

Adjusting for a shadow

A covariate that is 80% signal removes 68.85% of the confounding, not 80% — the share is λ(1 − ρ²)/(1 − λρ²) and it is below the reliability everywhere. The residual bias is 0.1084 against an effect of 0.5, and at 25,600 rows it is 17.6 standard errors wide.

 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. Regression, and what the summary hides

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.

 A cross-entropy fit of a normal proposal to P(Z > 5), stage by stage, fitting mean and spread or the mean alone. Each stage draws a thousand points from the current proposal, keeps the top tenth, and refits the normal to them, each weighted by the target density over the proposal's. Fitting the mean alone, the levels are 1.24, 2.99, 4.59, 5.00 and the fit reaches 5 at stage 4, ending at N(5.199, 1). Fitting mean and spread from the same seed, the spread goes 1.000, 0.456, 0.244, 0.096, 0.054, 0.043 over the first six stages, roughly halving each time, and after 30 stages the level has stalled at 3.728 with a spread of 1.0e-6, never reaching 5. What makes it checkable

A proposal fitted to its own draws

The cross-entropy method fits an importance-sampling proposal from its own pilot draws, and asked to fit a normal's mean and spread to P(Z > 5) it fails before the question of variance arises: the spread halves at every stage, the level stalls near 3.7, and 95% of runs never reach the threshold, so the interval covers 1.1% of the time. Its ideal end point, the normal closest to Z conditioned past 5, is N(5.187, 0.181²), which has an infinite variance inside its own draws' reach and covers 93.7% at a thousand draws and 90.8% at ten thousand. Fitting the mean alone lands within a tenth of the best shift and covers 94.5%.

 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. Decided before the data

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.

 Three adjustment rules on four thousand structures, as every covariate gets noisier. Four thousand random structures of six covariates, the treatment's effect fixed at 0.5, every covariate observed with the same reliability. Mean absolute bias of adjusting for nothing stays 0.190; adjusting for everything measured falls from 0.377 with exact covariates to 0.279 at reliability 0.8 and 0.203 at 0.5; adjusting for the common causes rises from 0 to 0.056 and 0.118. Adjusting for everything beats adjusting for nothing on 33.8% at 1, 38.3% at 0.9, 42.0% at 0.8, 45.3% at 0.7, 48.3% at 0.6, 50.8% at 0.5. The common causes never do worse than nothing at any common reliability. What conditioning on a variable does

A set of shadows

Measure every covariate of four thousand random structures with reliability 0.8 and adjusting for the common causes still never does worse than adjusting for nothing — the bias left is each confounder's part times one minus its proxy's reliability, scaled alike. Adjusting for everything measured gets better, beating nothing on 42.0% of structures against 33.8% with exact covariates, because noise blunts the bad adjustments too. Spread the reliabilities to 0.75 ± 0.25 and the right set does harm on 7.15% of structures, every one of them with confounders pushing opposite ways.

 How often a skewed study reports selection that is not there, by the strength of a variable that moves recording only. 120 studies of 800 rows at each strength, missing at random on the regressor with a right-skewed residual, 35% unrecorded. The variable w shifts the chance of being recorded and has no place in the outcome; its share of the recording index's variance is 0.0%, 9.3%, 29.1%, 62.1% at strengths 0, 0.5, 1, 2. The selection model that includes w rejects missingness at random on 75.8%, 27.5%, 7.5%, 5.0% of studies; the same model fitted without w rejects on 78.3%, 85.0%, 100.0%, 100.0%. The value that is not there

A variable that moves recording

A selection model fitted to a skewed outcome that is missing at random reports selection that is not there on three studies in four. Give it a variable that shifts who is recorded and has no place in the outcome — strong enough to carry 29% of the recording index's variance — and the false reports fall to 7.5%, the slope from 1.034 to 0.613 against a truth of 0.6. Leave the same variable out of the model and it does harm instead: false reports reach 100%, and where the outcome really does decide recording, the estimated pull falls from 1.18 to 0.78.

 Sixteen groups from two clusters: the true effects, the observed means and the pooled estimates, with the kurtosis of each. One dataset of 16 groups of four observations each, effects drawn from two clusters with total spread 2, noise 3. The fitted spread is 1.701, so every estimate is pulled 43.7% of the way to the centre -0.213. Kurtosis: true effects 1.203, observed means 2.348, pooled estimates 2.348 — the last two identical, because one is an affine image of the other. Groups that borrow

The shape the estimates keep

Partial pooling was suspected of destroying the evidence of its own misfit: compressing a two-cluster population of group effects towards one centre before any test could see the clusters. With groups of equal size it destroys nothing, because every estimate moves the same fraction of the way to the same place and the estimates keep the means' shape exactly — except when the fit pools completely, as it does on 29.9% of eight-group datasets at a spread of one. The evidence was never there: a shape check has 6.5% power at eight groups. With groups of unequal size the pooled estimates see the clusters better than the raw means do.

 A prior centred on the truth's population and too confident about it: coverage across the population, and how often the check flags it. Truths drawn from a population of proportions centred at 0.2 and worth ten observations; twenty trials per study; the analyst's prior centred at 0.2 with the weight on the axis. Coverage of the 95% credible interval, exact over the population: 94.7% at 2, 96.0% at 5, 95.0% at 10, 88.1% at 20, 75.9% at 35, 61.3% at 60, 48.2% at 100, 34.0% at 200, 23.9% at 400. Share of studies whose count the prior-predictive check puts in its 5% tail: 0.1%, 1.8%, 3.2%, 14.2%, 17.3%, 17.3%, 21.9%, 21.9%, 21.9%. The prior, doing visible work

A prior wrong about its own spread

A prior can be centred exactly where the truths lie and still be wrong about how far they spread. Ten times too confident — worth a hundred observations about proportions whose population is worth ten — its 95% credible intervals cover 48.2% of the population's studies at twenty trials, and nothing in the interval shows it: it is 0.456 of a flat prior's width, against 0.436 for a prior whose hundred observations' confidence is earned. A prior with tails too thin misses the one study in ten that comes from somewhere unusual a third of the time, and a flat component of two per cent brings that study's coverage from 65.6% to 84.0%.

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

The pattern a cause leaves on its neighbours

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

 How often a trial with nothing to find shows a Simpson reversal somewhere, by how many variables are searched and how. Trials of eighty whose treatment helps every patient by six points, twenty baseline variables tracking the risk with correlations from 0.95 to 0.10; 4,000 trials. Searching the strongest 1, 2, 5, 10, 20: every cut, 23.4%, 30.7%, 41.0%, 46.9%, 49.0%; the deciles, 13.2%, 19.4%, 27.9%, 33.3%, 36.4%; the median, 4.4%, 6.9%, 11.3%, 14.4%, 16.2%. When the stratified answer and the pooled one disagree

Every variable, every cut

Slide the cut along every one of twenty baseline variables in a randomised trial of eighty whose treatment helps every patient equally, and some variable shows a Simpson reversal at some cut in 49.0% of trials — a coin toss with nothing to find. The twenty scans do not add like independent chances: if they did they would reverse 92.4% of the time. They read one patient risk between them, and the weak variables seldom reverse at all, so the strongest five supply 41.0 of the 49.0 points. A trial that shows one reversal usually shows several: 4.8 variables on average.

All themes