## Archive for the Uncategorized Category

## L’Affiche Rouge (Feb. 21, 1944)

Posted in Uncategorized with tags Franc-Tireurs et Partisans, French history, French resistance, L'Affiche Rouge, Paris, partisans on February 21, 2014 by xi'an## my week at War[wick]

Posted in pictures, Running, Statistics, Travel, Uncategorized with tags ABC, AMIS, Bayesian asymptotics, COLT2014, empirical Bayes methods, empirical likelihood, MASDOC, University of Warwick, Warwickshire, Zeeman building on February 1, 2014 by xi'an**T**his was a most busy and profitable week in Warwick as, in addition to meeting with local researchers and students on a wide range of questions and projects, giving an extended seminar to MASDOC students, attending as many seminars as humanly possible (!), and preparing a 5k race by running in the Warwickshire countryside (in the dark and in the rain), I received the visits of Kerrie Mengersen, Judith Rousseau and Jean-Michel Marin, with whom I made some progress on papers we are writing together. In particular, Jean-Michel and I wrote the skeleton of a paper we (still) plan to submit to COLT 2014 next week. And Judith, Kerrie and I drafted new if paradoxical aconnections between empirical likelihood and model selection. Jean-Michel and Judith also gave talks at the CRiSM seminar, Jean-Michel presenting the latest developments on the convergence of our AMIS algorithm, Judith summarising several papers on the analysis of empirical Bayes methods in non-parametric settings.

## 2013 in review [by WordPress]

Posted in Uncategorized with tags 2013, Wordpress on December 31, 2013 by xi'anThe WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about

250,000times in 2013. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 11 days for that many people to see it.

## beta HPD

Posted in Books, R, Statistics, Uncategorized, University life with tags beta distribution, book chapter, fREN, French paper, HPD region, pbeta(), R, uniroot() on October 17, 2013 by xi'an**W**hile writing an introductory chapter on Bayesian analysis (in French), I came by the issue of computing an HPD region when the posterior distribution is a Beta B(α,β) distribution… There is no analytic solution and hence I resorted to numerical resolution (provided here for α=117.5, β=115.5):

f=function(p){ # find the symmetric g=function(x){return(x-p*((1-p)/(1-x))^(115.5/117.5))} return(uniroot(g,c(.504,.99))$root)} ff=function(alpha){ # find the coverage g=function(x){return(x-p*((1-p)/(1-x))^(115.5/117.5))} return(uniroot(g,c(.011,.49))$root)}

and got the following return:

> ff(.95) [1] 0.4504879 > f(ff(.95)) [1] 0.5580267

which was enough for my simple book illustration… Since (.450,558) is then the HPD region at credible level 0.95.

## Deborah Mayo’s talk in Montréal (JSM 2013)

Posted in Books, Statistics, Uncategorized with tags Allan Birnbaum, Deborah Mayo, JSM 2013, Likelihood Principle, Montréal, Sufficiency principle, weak conditionality principle on July 31, 2013 by xi'an**A**s posted on her blog, Deborah Mayo is giving a lecture at JSM 2013 in Montréal about why Birnbaum’s derivation of the Strong Likelihood Principle (SLP) is wrong. Or, more accurately, why *“WCP entails SLP”*. It would have been a great opportunity to hear Deborah presenting her case and I am sorry I am missing this opportunity. (Although not sorry to be in the beautiful Dolomites at that time.) Here are the slides:

**D**eborah’s argument is the same as previously: there is no reason for the inference in the mixed (or Birnbaumized) experiment to be equal to the inference in the conditional experiment. As previously, I do not get it: the weak conditionality principle (WCP) implies that inference from the mixture output, once we know which component is used (hence rejecting the* “and we don’t know which”* on slide 8), should only be dependent on that component. I also fail to understand why either WCP or the Birnbaum experiment refers to a mixture (sl.13) in that the index of the experiment is assumed to be known, contrary to mixtures. Thus (still referring at slide 13), the presentation of Birnbaum’s experiment is erroneous. It is indeed impossible to force the outcome of y* if tail and of x* if head *but* it is possible to choose the experiment index at random, 1 versus 2, and then, if y* is observed, to report (E_{1},x*) as a sufficient statistic. (Incidentally, there is a typo on slide 15, it should be “likewise for x*”.)

## flu & Bach

Posted in Uncategorized with tags Bach, Brandenbug concertos, Nate Silver, The Signal and The Noise on February 14, 2013 by xi'an**A**s the cold I caught in England (maybe) last week was getting more severe, I went to see my doctor yesterday and he diagnosed a flu… So expect delays on the ‘Og in the coming days. (Interestingly, I have reached the part in Nate Silver’s book, *The Signal and the Noise*, about epidemics and the poor predictions related to the swine flu a few years ago.) What about Bach?! Well, my doctor always has classical music in his waiting room and Bach’s 6th Brandenburg concerto was playing while I was waiting, sneezing, and coughing. This piece is associated with my early childhood as it was on the only vinyl record my parents owned for quite a while, so we ended up listening to it very regularly… *(In case you wonder, I still enjoy it very much!)*

## Structure and uncertainty, Bristol, Sept. 25

Posted in pictures, Running, Statistics, Travel, Uncategorized, University life with tags ABC, Bristol, Brunel Raj, Clifton, ISBA, Kyoto, likelihood-free methods, SuSTain, uncertainty, University of Bristol on September 26, 2012 by xi'an**T**his was a fairly full day at the *Structure and uncertainty modelling, inference and computation in complex stochastic systems* workshop! After a good one hour run around the Clifton Down, the morning was organised around likelihood-free methods, mostly ABC, plus Arnaud Doucet’s study of methods based on unbiased estimators of the likelihood (à la Beaumont, with the novelty of assessing the inefficiency due to the estimation, really fascinating..). The afternoon was dedicated to graphical models. Nicolas Chopin gave an updated version of his Kyoto talk on EP-ABC where he resorted to composite likelihoods for hidden Markov models, (I then wondered about the parameterisation and the tolerance determination for this algorithm.) Oliver Ratman presented some of the work he did on the flu while in Duke, then move to a new approach for ABC tolerance based on various kinds of testing (which I found clearer than in Kyoto, maybe because I was not jet-lagged!) And I gave my talk on ABC-EL.I found the afternoon session harder to follow, mostly because I always have trouble understanding the motivations and the notations used on these models, albeit fascinating. I remained intrigued by the bidirectional dependence arrow in those graphs for the whole afternoon (even though I think I get it now!) After looking at the few posters presented this afternoon, I went for another short run in Leigh Woods, before joining a group of friends for an Indian dinner at the Brunel Raj. A very full day…!