retire statistical significance [follow-up]

[Here is a brief update sent by my coauthors Valentin, Sander, and Blake on events following the Nature comment “Retire Statistical Significance“.]

In the eight months since publication of the comment and of the special issue of The American Statistician, we are glad to see a rich discussion on internet blogs and in scholarly publications and popular media.Nature

One important indication of change is that since March numerous scientific journals have published editorials or revised their author guidelines. We have selected eight editorials that not only discuss statistics reform but give concrete new guidelines to authors. As you will see, the journals differ in how far they want to go with the reform (all but one of the following links are open access).

1) The New England Journal of Medicine, “New Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in the Journal”

2) Pediatric Anesthesia, “Embracing uncertainty: The days of statistical significance are numbered”

3) Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, “The Push to Move Health Care Science Beyond p < .05“

4) Brain and Neuroscience Advances, “Promoting and supporting credibility in neuroscience”

5) Journal of Wildlife Management, “Vexing Vocabulary in Submissions to the Journal of Wildlife Management”

6) Demographic Research, “P-values, theory, replicability, and rigour”

7) Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, “New Guidelines for Data Reporting and Statistical Analysis: Helping Authors With Transparency and Rigor in Research“

8) Significance, “The S word … and what to do about it”

Further, some of you took part in a survey by Tom Hardwicke and John Ioannidis that was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation along with editorials by Andrew Gelman and Deborah Mayo.

We replied with a short commentary in that journal, “Statistical Significance Gives Bias a Free Pass“

And finally, joining with the American Statistical Association (ASA), the National Institute of Statistical Sciences (NISS) in the United States has also taken up the reform issue.

Introductory overview lecture: the ABC of ABC [JSM19 #1]

Here are my slides [more or less] for the introductory overview lecture I am giving today at JSM 2019, 4:00-5:50, CC-Four Seasons I. There is obviously quite an overlap with earlier courses I gave on the topic, although I refrained here from mentioning any specific application (like population genetics) to focus on statistical and computational aspects.

Along with the other introductory overview lectures in this edition of JSM:

• Sunday 28, 2:00-3:50, CC-Four Seasons I: CSI at the JSM: Forensic Statistics and the Value of Scientific Evidence in Court by Hal Stern (University of California, Irvine)
• Monday 29, 8:30-10:20, CC-205: Assessing Procedures vs. Assessing Evidence by Michael Levine (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
• Monday 29, 2:00_3:50, CC-205: Causal inference in modern statistics by Jennifer Hill (New York University)and Avi Feller (UC Berkeley)
• Tuesday 30, 8:30-10:20, CC-205: Modern Risk Analysis  by Walter Piergorsch (University of Arizona) and David Banks (Duke University)

off to Denver! [JSM2019]

As off today, I am attending JSM 2019 in Denver, giving an “Introductory Overview Lecture” on The ABC of Approximate Bayesian Computation on Sunday afternoon and chairing an ABC session on Monday morning. As far as I know these are the only ABC sessions at JSM this year… And hence the only sessions I will be attending. (I have not been to Denver and the area since 1993, when I visited Kerrie Mengersen and Richard Tweedie in Fort Collins. And hiked up to Long Peak with Gerard. Alas, no time for climbing in the Rockies this time.)

Statistics and Health Care Fraud & Measuring Crime [ASA book reviews]

From the recently started ASA books series on statistical reasoning in science and society (of which I already reviewed a sequel to The Lady tasting Tea), a short book, Statistics and Health Care Fraud, I read at the doctor while waiting for my appointment, with no chances of cheating! While making me realise that there is a significant amount of health care fraud in the US, of which I had never though of before (!), with possibly specific statistical features to the problem, besides the use of extreme value theory, I did not find me insight there on the techniques used to detect these frauds, besides the accumulation of Florida and Texas examples. As  such this is a very light introduction to the topic, whose intended audience of choice remains unclear to me. It is stopping short of making a case for statistics and modelling against more machine-learning options. And does not seem to mention false positives… That is, the inevitable occurrence of some doctors or hospitals being above the median costs! (A point I remember David Spiegelhalter making a long while ago, during a memorable French statistical meeting in Pau.) The book also illustrates the use of a free auditing software called Rat-stats for multistage sampling, which apparently does not go beyond selecting claims at random according to their amount. Without learning from past data. (I also wonder if the criminals can reduce the chances of being caught by using this software.)

A second book on the “same” topic!, Measuring Crime, I read, not waiting at the police station, but while flying to Venezia. As indicated by the title, this is about measuring crime, with a lot of emphasis on surveys and census and the potential measurement errors at different levels of surveying or censusing… Again very little on statistical methodology, apart from questioning the data, the mode of surveying, crossing different sources, and establishing the impact of the way questions are stated, but also little on bias and the impact of policing and preventing AIs, as discussed in Weapons of Math Destruction and in some of Kristin Lum’s papers.Except for the almost obligatory reference to Minority Report. The book also concludes on an history chapter centred at Edith Abbott setting the bases for serious crime data collection in the 1920’s.

[And the usual disclaimer applies, namely that this bicephalic review is likely to appear later in CHANCE, in my book reviews column.]

Bayesian inference with intractable normalizing functions

In the latest September issue of JASA I received a few days ago, I spotted a review paper by Jaewoo Park & Murali Haran on intractable normalising constants Z(θ). There have been many proposals for solving this problem as well as several surveys, some conferences and even a book. The current survey focus on MCMC solutions, from auxiliary variable approaches to likelihood approximation algorithms (albeit without ABC entries, even though the 2006 auxiliary variable solutions of Møller et al. et of Murray et al. do simulate pseudo-observations and hence…). This includes the MCMC approximations to auxiliary sampling proposed by Faming Liang and co-authors across several papers. And the paper Yves Atchadé, Nicolas Lartillot and I wrote ten years ago on an adaptive MCMC targeting Z(θ) and using stochastic approximation à la Wang-Landau. Park & Haran stress the relevance of using sufficient statistics in this approach towards fighting computational costs, which makes me wonder if an ABC version could be envisioned.  The paper also includes pseudo-marginal techniques like Russian Roulette (once spelled Roullette) and noisy MCMC as proposed in Alquier et al.  (2016). These methods are compared on three examples: (1) the Ising model, (2) a social network model, the Florentine business dataset used in our original paper, and a larger one where most methods prove too costly, and (3) an attraction-repulsion point process model. In conclusion, an interesting survey, taking care to spell out the calibration requirements and the theoretical validation, if of course depending on the chosen benchmarks.