Archive for métro

Le Monde puzzle [#907]

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, University life with tags , , , on September 18, 2015 by xi'an

A combinatorics (?) Le Monde mathematical puzzle:

Each day of 2014, more than half of the 365 Paris métro drivers are at work. What is the minimal number of drivers one should consider to be sure to include at least a driver for each day of the year?

I may be missing an item of information from the puzzle: since at least 183 drivers are at work every day, if I select 183 drivers at random, there remain 182 further drivers. Even in the most extreme case where the 182 further drivers are at work every day of the year, there will be at least one of the 183 selected drivers at work every day. Conversely, if I select 182 or less drivers, one configuration is that the 183 or more remaining drivers are the ones always at work…

art brut

Posted in pictures, Travel with tags , , , , , , on August 5, 2015 by xi'an


snapshot from Boston [guest shot]

Posted in pictures, Travel with tags , , , , on July 4, 2015 by xi'an


trans-dimensional nested sampling and a few planets

Posted in Books, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 2, 2015 by xi'an

This morning, in the train to Dauphine (train that was even more delayed than usual!), I read a recent arXival of Brendon Brewer and Courtney Donovan. Entitled Fast Bayesian inference for exoplanet discovery in radial velocity data, the paper suggests to associate Matthew Stephens’ (2000)  birth-and-death MCMC approach with nested sampling to infer about the number N of exoplanets in an exoplanetary system. The paper is somewhat sparse in its description of the suggested approach, but states that the birth-date moves involves adding a planet with parameters simulated from the prior and removing a planet at random, both being accepted under a likelihood constraint associated with nested sampling. I actually wonder if this actually is the birth-date version of Peter Green’s (1995) RJMCMC rather than the continuous time birth-and-death process version of Matthew…

“The traditional approach to inferring N also contradicts fundamental ideas in Bayesian computation. Imagine we are trying to compute the posterior distribution for a parameter a in the presence of a nuisance parameter b. This is usually solved by exploring the joint posterior for a and b, and then only looking at the generated values of a. Nobody would suggest the wasteful alternative of using a discrete grid of possible a values and doing an entire Nested Sampling run for each, to get the marginal likelihood as a function of a.”

This criticism is receivable when there is a huge number of possible values of N, even though I see no fundamental contradiction with my ideas about Bayesian computation. However, it is more debatable when there are a few possible values for N, given that the exploration of the augmented space by a RJMCMC algorithm is often very inefficient, in particular when the proposed parameters are generated from the prior. The more when nested sampling is involved and simulations are run under the likelihood constraint! In the astronomy examples given in the paper, N never exceeds 15… Furthermore, by merging all N’s together, it is unclear how the evidences associated with the various values of N can be computed. At least, those are not reported in the paper.

The paper also omits to provide the likelihood function so I do not completely understand where “label switching” occurs therein. My first impression is that this is not a mixture model. However if the observed signal (from an exoplanetary system) is the sum of N signals corresponding to N planets, this makes more sense.

a probabilistic proof to a quasi-Monte Carlo lemma

Posted in Books, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , on November 17, 2014 by xi'an

As I was reading in the Paris métro a new textbook on Quasi-Monte Carlo methods, Introduction to Quasi-Monte Carlo Integration and Applications, written by Gunther Leobacher and Friedrich Pillichshammer, I came upon the lemma that, given two sequences on (0,1) such that, for all i’s,

|u_i-v_i|\le\delta\quad\text{then}\quad\left|\prod_{i=1}^s u_i-\prod_{i=1}^s v_i\right|\le 1-(1-\delta)^s

and the geometric bound made me wonder if there was an easy probabilistic proof to this inequality. Rather than the algebraic proof contained in the book. Unsurprisingly, there is one based on associating with each pair (u,v) a pair of independent events (A,B) such that, for all i’s,

A_i\subset B_i\,,\ u_i=\mathbb{P}(A_i)\,,\ v_i=\mathbb{P}(B_i)

and representing

\left|\prod_{i=1}^s u_i-\prod_{i=1}^s v_i\right| = \mathbb{P}(\cap_{i=1}^s A_i) - \mathbb{P}(\cap_{i=1}^s B_i)\,.

Obviously, there is no visible consequence to this remark, but it was a good way to switch off the métro hassle for a while! (The book is under review and the review will hopefully be posted on the ‘Og as soon as it is completed.)

métro static

Posted in pictures, Running with tags , , , , , , , on September 27, 2014 by xi'an

“Mon premier marathon je le fais en courant.” [I will do my first marathon running.]

métro static

Posted in Kids, Travel with tags , , on March 26, 2014 by xi'an

[heard in the métro this morning]

“…les équations à deux inconnues ça va encore, mais à trois inconnues, c’est trop dur!”

[“…systems of equations with two unknowns are still ok, but with three variables it is too hard!”]


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 946 other followers