a common confusion between sample and population moments

No review this summer

A recent editorial in Nature was a declaration by a biologist from UCL on her refusal to accept refereeing requests during the summer (or was it the summer break), which was motivated by a need to reconnect with her son. Which is a good enough reason (!), but reflects sadly on the increasing pressure on one’s schedule to juggle teaching, research, administration, grant hunting, society service, along with a balanced enough family life. (Although I have been rather privileged in this regard!) Given that refereeing or journal editing is neither visible nor rewarded, it comes as the first task to be postponed or abandoned, even though most of us realise it is essential to keep science working as a whole and to make our own papers published. I have actually noticed an increasing difficulty in the past decade to get (good) referees to accept new reviews, often asking for deadlines that are hurting the authors, like six months. Making them practically unavailable. As I mentioned earlier on this blog, it could be that publishing referees’ reports as discussions would help, since they would become recognised as (unreviewed!) publications, but it is unclear this is the solution. If judging from the similar difficulty in getting discussions for discussed papers. (As an aside, there are two exciting papers coming up for discussion in Series B, ‘Unbiased Markov chain Monte Carlo methods with couplings’ by  Pierre E. Jacob, John O’Leary and Yves F. Atchadé and in Bayesian Analysis, Latent nested nonparametric priors by Frederico Camerlenghi, David Dunson, Antonio Lijoi, Igor Prünster, and Abel Rodríguez). Which is surprising when considering the willingness of a part of the community to engage into forii discussions, sometimes of a considerable length as illustrated on Andrew’s blog.

Another entry in Nature mentioned the case of two University of København tenured professors in geology who were fired for either using a private email address (?!) or being away on field work during an exam and at a conference without permission from the administration. Which does not even remotely sound like a faulty behaviour to me or else I would have been fired eons ago..!

buona sera da Roma [jatp]

Metropolis gets off the ground

An X validated discussion that toed-and-froed about an incomprehension of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Which started with a blame of George Casella‘s and Roger Berger’s Statistical Inference (p.254), when the real issue was the inquisitor having difficulties with the notation V ~ f(v), or the notion of random variable [generation], mistaking identically distributed with identical. Even (me) crawling from one iteration to the next did not help at the beginning. Another illustration of the strong tendency on this forum to jettison fundamental prerequisites…

the Grumble distribution and an ODE

As ‘Og’s readers may have noticed, I paid some recent visits to Cross Validated (although I find this too addictive to be sustainable on a long term basis!, and as already reported a few years ago frustrating at several levels from questions asked without any preliminary personal effort, to a lack of background material to understand hints towards the answer, to not even considering answers [once the homework due date was past?], &tc.). Anyway, some questions are nonetheless great puzzles, to with this one about the possible transformation of a random variable R with density

into a Gumble distribution. While the better answer is that it translates into a power law,

,

I thought using the S=R² transform could work but obtained a wrong sign in the pseudo-Gumble density

and then went into seeking another transform into a Gumbel rv T, which amounted to solve the differential equation

As I could not solve analytically the ODE, I programmed a simple Runge-Kutta numerical resolution as follows:

solvR=function(prec=10^3,maxz=1){
z=seq(1,maxz,le=prec)
t=rep(1,prec) #t(1)=1
for (i in 2:prec)
  t[i]=t[i-1]+(z[i]-z[i-1])*exp(-z[i-1]+
  exp(-z[i-1])+t[i-1]+exp(-t[i-1]))
zold=z
z=seq(.1/maxz,1,le=prec)
t=c(t[-prec],t)
for (i in (prec-1):1)
  t[i]=t[i+1]+(z[i]-z[i+1])*exp(-z[i+1]+
  exp(-z[i+1])+t[i+1]+exp(-t[i+1]))
return(cbind(c(z[-prec],zold),t))
}

Which shows that [the increasing] t(w) quickly gets too large for the function to be depicted. But this is a fairly useless result in that a transform of the original variable and of its parameter into an arbitrary distribution is always possible, given that  W above has a fixed distribution… Hence the pun on Gumble in the title.