Archive for the Statistics Category

Paris-Dauphine in Nature

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 25, 2017 by xi'an

Since this is an event unlikely to occur that frequently, let me point out that Université Paris-Dauphine got a nominal mention in Nature of two weeks ago, through an article covering the recent Abel Prize of Yves Meyer and his work on wavelets through a collection of French institutions, including Paris-Dauphine where he was a professor in the maths department (CEREMADE) from 1985 till 1996. (Except for including a somewhat distantly related picture of an oscilloscope and a mention of the Higgs boson, the Nature article is quite nice!)

Gregynog [jatp]

Posted in pictures, Running, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , on April 24, 2017 by xi'an

“In short, the French presidential election is a mess”

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , on April 23, 2017 by xi'an

Harry Enten (and not Nate Silver as reported by Le Monde) published yesterday a post on Five-Thirty-Eight about the unpredictability of the French elections. Which essentially states the obvious, namely that the four major candidates all stand a chance to make it to the runoff. (The post classifies Macron as a former left-wing socialist, which shows a glaring misunderstanding of the candidate or a massive divergence of what left-wing means between France and the USA.) The tribune states both that the polls could exhibit a bigger mistake than in the previous elections and that Le Pen score is unlikely to be underestimated, because voters are no longer shy to acknowledge they vote for a fascist candidate. One argument for the error in the polls is attributed to pollsters “herding” their results, i.e., shrinking the raw figures towards the global average taken over previous polls. A [rather reasonable] correction dismissed by Le Monde and French pollsters. While Enten argues that the variability of the percentages over fifty polls is too small to be plausible, assuming a Normal distribution that may not hold because French pollsters use quotas to build their polling population. In any case, this analysis, while cautious and reasonably so!, does not elaborate on the largest question mark, the elephant in the room, namely the percentage of abstentions today and their distribution among the political spectrum, which may eventually make the difference tonight. Indeed, “the bottom line is that we don’t know what’s going to happen on Sunday.” And it is definitely frightening!

March(es) for Science

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , on April 22, 2017 by xi'an

Today there are around 500 marches for Science organised around the World (incl. on in Kangerlussuaq, Qeqqata, Greenland!). Primarily to protest the unprecedented attacks of trumpism on science, scientific values, and scientists, and not only through budget cuts, agency closures, public data erasures, but also denegation of scientific expertise and data to advance financial and partisan interests against climate, water preservation, minorities rights, women equality, and international relations. Being now at a remote retreat in Northern Wales, I will walk virtually at the Cardiff March for Science.

chateau l’insoumise [not a political message]

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , on April 20, 2017 by xi'an

lost in translation [oops]

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , on April 20, 2017 by xi'an

In my latest book review for CHANCE, I published my review of Michèle Audin’s Une Vie Brève. However, for a reason I cannot remember, I (?) added that the translated edition of the book was One Hundred Twenty-One Days, which is an altogether different book by the same author! (I actually cannot find a trace of this reference in my submitted LaTeX file, although this does not signify I did not add the remark when I got the proofs.) This was pointed out by the translator, Christiana Hills, so apologies to the author and to the readers for this confusion!

Nobel Prizes against le Pen!

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on April 19, 2017 by xi'an

“Certains d’entre nous, lauréats du prix Nobel d’économie, ont été cités par des candidats à l’élection présidentielle française, notamment par Marine Le Pen et ses équipes, pour ­justifier un programme politique sur la question de l’Europe. Les signataires de cette lettre ont des po­sitions différentes sur les sujets complexes que sont l’union monétaire et les politiques de ­relance. ­Cependant, nos opinions convergent pour condamner cette instrumentalisation de la pensée économique dans le cadre de la campagne électorale française.

– La construction européenne est capitale non seulement pour maintenir la paix sur le continent mais également pour le progrès économique des Etats membres et leur pouvoir politique dans le monde.

– Les évolutions proposées par les programmes antieuropéens déstabiliseraient la France et re­mettraient en cause la coopération entre pays européens, qui assure aujourd’hui une stabilité économique et politique en Europe.

– Les politiques isolationnistes et protectionnistes et les dévaluations compétitives, toutes menées au détriment des autres pays, sont de dangereux moyens d’essayer de générer de la croissance. Elles entraînent des mesures de représailles et des guerres commerciales. Au final, elles se révéleront préjudiciables à la France ainsi qu’à ses partenaires commerciaux.

– Quand ils sont bien intégrés au marché du travail, les migrants peuvent être une opportunité économique pour le pays d’accueil. Plusieurs des pays les plus prospères au monde ont su accueillir et intégrer les émigrés.

– Il y a une grande différence entre choisir de ne pas rejoindre l’euro en premier lieu et en sortir après l’avoir adopté.

– Il faut renouveler les engagements de justice sociale, et ainsi garantir et développer l’équité et la protection sociale, en accord avec les valeurs traditionnelles de la France, de liberté, d’égalité et de fraternité. Mais l’on peut et l’on doit parvenir à cette protection sociale sans protectionnisme économique.

– Alors que l’Europe et le monde font face à des épreuves sans précédent, il faut plus de solidarité, pas moins. Les problèmes sont trop sérieux pour être confiés à des politiciens clivants.”

Angus Deaton (Princeton, prix Nobel en 2015), Peter Diamond (MIT, 2010), Robert Engle (NYU, 2003), Eugene Fama (Chicago, 2013), Lars Hansen (Chicago, 2013), Oliver Hart (Harvard, 2016), Bengt Holmström (MIT, 2016), Daniel Kahneman (Princeton, 2002), Finn Kydland (CMU, 2004), Eric Maskin (Harvard, 2007), Daniel McFadden (Berkeley, 2000), James Mirrlees (Cambridge, 1996), Robert Mundell (Columbia, 1999), Roger Myerson (Chicago, 2007), Edmund Phelps (Columbia, 2005), Chris Pissarides (LSE, 2010), Alvin Roth (Stanford, 2012), Amartya Sen (Harvard, 1998), William Sharpe (Stanford, 1990), Robert Shiller (Yale, 2013), Christopher Sims (Princeton, 2011), Robert Solow (Columbia, 1987), Michael Spence (Stanford, 2001), Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia, 2001), Jean Tirole (Toulouse School of Economics, 2014)