## Archive for the Wines Category

## da San Geminiano

Posted in pictures, Travel, Wines with tags Italia, medieval architecture, San Geminiano, Spring, Tuscany on May 21, 2015 by xi'an## Kaefferkopf

Posted in pictures, Wines with tags Alsace, French wines, Gewurztraminer, Kaefferkopf, Riesling, Strasbourg on May 20, 2015 by xi'an## speed seminar-ing

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, Travel, University life, Wines with tags ABC, Bayes factor, Bayesian model choice, Bayesian testing, French cheese, French wines, Languedoc wines, Livarot, Mas Bruguière, Montpellier, Pic Saint Loup on May 20, 2015 by xi'an**Y**esterday, I made a quick afternoon trip to Montpellier as replacement of a seminar speaker who had cancelled at the last minute. Most obviously, I gave a talk about our “testing as mixture” proposal. And as previously, the talk generated a fair amount of discussion and feedback from the audience. Providing me with additional aspects to include in a revision of the paper. Whether or not the current submission is rejected, new points made and received during those seminars will have to get in a revised version as they definitely add to the appeal to the perspective. In that seminar, most of the discussion concentrated on the connection with *decisions* based on such a tool as the posterior distribution of the mixture weight(s). My argument for sticking with the posterior rather than providing a hard decision rule was that the message is indeed in arguing hard rules that end up mimicking the p- or b-values. And the catastrophic consequences of fishing for significance and the like. Producing instead a validation by simulating under each model pseudo-samples shows what to expect for each model under comparison. The argument did not really convince Jean-Michel Marin, I am afraid! Another point he raised was that we could instead use a distribution on α with support {0,1}, to avoid the encompassing model he felt was too far from the original models. However, this leads back to the Bayes factor as the weights in 0 and 1 are the marginal likelihoods, nothing more. However, this perspective on the classical approach has at least the appeal of completely validating the use of improper priors on common (nuisance or not) parameters. Pierre Pudlo also wondered why we could not conduct an analysis on the mixture of the likelihoods. Instead of the likelihood of the mixture. My first answer was that there was not enough information in the data for estimating the weight(s). A few more seconds of reflection led me to the further argument that the posterior on α with support (0,1) would then be a mixture of Be(2,1) and Be(1,2) with weights the marginal likelihoods, again (under a uniform prior on α). So indeed not much to gain. A last point we discussed was the case of the evolution trees we analyse with population geneticists from the neighbourhood (and with ABC). Jean-Michel’s argument was that the scenari under comparison were not compatible with a mixture, the models being exclusive. My reply involved an admixture model that contained all scenarios as special cases. After a longer pondering, I think his objection was more about the non iid nature of the data. But the admixture construction remains valid. And makes a very strong case in favour of our approach, I believe.

After the seminar, Christian Lavergne and Jean-Michel had organised a doubly exceptional wine-and-cheese party: first because it is not usually the case there is such a post-seminar party and second because they had chosen a terrific series of wines from the Mas Bruguière (Pic Saint-Loup) vineyards. Ending up with a great 2007 L’Arbouse. Perfect ending for an exciting day. (I am not even mentioning a special Livarot from close to my home-town!)

## Toscana [#2]

Posted in pictures, Travel, Wines with tags Castello di Montefioralle, Greve en Chianti, Italia, Italian wines, San Giovese, sunset, Tuscany on May 19, 2015 by xi'an## Cauchy Distribution: Evil or Angel?

Posted in Books, pictures, Running, Statistics, Travel, University life, Wines with tags Boston, Box-Muller algorithm, Cauchy distribution, champagne, correlation, Harvard University, JSM 2014, Mathias Drton, Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, Mystic river, Natesh Pillai, Sommerville, Xiao-Li Meng on May 19, 2015 by xi'an**N**atesh Pillai and Xiao-Li Meng just arXived a short paper that solves the Cauchy conjecture of Drton and Xiao [I mentioned last year at JSM], namely that, when considering two normal vectors with generic variance matrix S, a weighted average of the ratios X/Y remains Cauchy(0,1), just as in the iid S=I case. Even when the weights are random. The fascinating side of this now resolved (!) conjecture is that the correlation between the terms does not seem to matter. Pushing the correlation to one [assuming it is meaningful, which is a suspension of belief!, since there is no standard correlation for Cauchy variates] leads to a paradox: all terms are equal and yet… it works: we recover a single term, which again is Cauchy(0,1). All that remains thus to prove is that it stays Cauchy(0,1) between those two extremes, a weird kind of intermediary values theorem!

Actually, Natesh and XL further prove an inverse χ² theorem: the inverse of the normal vector, renormalised into a quadratic form is an inverse χ² no matter what its covariance matrix. The proof of this amazing theorem relies on a spherical representation of the bivariate Gaussian (also underlying the Box-Müller algorithm). The angles are then jointly distributed as

and from there follows the argument that conditional on the differences between the θ’s, all ratios are Cauchy distributed. Hence the conclusion!

A question that stems from reading this version of the paper is whether this property extends to other formats of non-independent Cauchy variates. Somewhat connected to my recent post about generating correlated variates from arbitrary distributions: using the inverse cdf transform of a Gaussian copula shows this is possibly the case: the following code is meaningless in that the empirical correlation has no connection with a “true” correlation, but nonetheless the experiment seems of interest…

> ro=.999999;x=matrix(rnorm(2e4),ncol=2);y=ro*x+sqrt(1-ro^2)*matrix(rnorm(2e4),ncol=2) > cor(x[,1]/x[,2],y[,1]/y[,2]) [1] -0.1351967 > ro=.99999999;x=matrix(rnorm(2e4),ncol=2);y=ro*x+sqrt(1-ro^2)*matrix(rnorm(2e4),ncol=2) > cor(x[,1]/x[,2],y[,1]/y[,2]) [1] 0.8622714 > ro=1-1e-5;x=matrix(rnorm(2e4),ncol=2);y=ro*x+sqrt(1-ro^2)*matrix(rnorm(2e4),ncol=2) > z=qcauchy(pnorm(as.vector(x)));w=qcauchy(pnorm(as.vector(y))) > cor(x=z,y=w) [1] 0.9999732 > ks.test((z+w)/2,"pcauchy") One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test data: (z + w)/2 D = 0.0068, p-value = 0.3203 alternative hypothesis: two-sided > ro=1-1e-3;x=matrix(rnorm(2e4),ncol=2);y=ro*x+sqrt(1-ro^2)*matrix(rnorm(2e4),ncol=2) > z=qcauchy(pnorm(as.vector(x)));w=qcauchy(pnorm(as.vector(y))) > cor(x=z,y=w) [1] 0.9920858 > ks.test((z+w)/2,"pcauchy") One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test data: (z + w)/2 D = 0.0036, p-value = 0.9574 alternative hypothesis: two-sided