**A** few days ago, I noticed the paper Estimation under matrix quadratic loss and matrix superharmonicity by Takeru Matsuda and my friend Bill Strawderman had appeared in Biometrika. *(Disclaimer: I was not involved in handling the submission!)* This is a “classical” shrinkage estimation problem in that covariance matrix estimators are compared under under a quadratic loss, using Charles Stein’s technique of unbiased estimation of the risk is derived. The authors show that the Efron–Morris estimator is minimax. They also introduce superharmonicity for matrix-variate functions towards showing that generalized Bayes estimator with respect to a matrix superharmonic priors are minimax., including a generalization of Stein’s prior. Superharmonicity that relates to (much) earlier results by Ed George (1986), Mary-Ellen Bock (1988), Dominique Fourdrinier, Bill Strawderman, and Marty Wells (1998). (All of whom I worked with in the 1980’s and 1990’s! in Rouen, Purdue, and Cornell). This paper also made me realise Dominique, Bill, and Marty had published a Springer book on Shrinkage estimators a few years ago and that I had missed it..!

## Archive for Springer-Verlag

## estimation of a normal mean matrix

Posted in Statistics with tags Biometrika, Charles Stein, Cornell University, James-Stein estimator, Purdue University, Rutgers University, shrinkage estimation, Springer-Verlag, superharmonicity, Université de Rouen on May 13, 2021 by xi'an## wrong algebra for slice sampler

Posted in Books, Kids, R, Statistics with tags cross validated, George Casella, Introducing Monte Carlo Methods with R, Japanese translation, LaTeX, logistic regression, lost in translation, Pratique R, R, slice sampler, Springer-Verlag, typo, Use R on January 27, 2021 by xi'an**O**nce more, and thrice alas!, I became aware of a typo in our “Use R!” book through a question on X validated from a reader unable to reproduce the slice of a basic 2D slice sampler for a logistic regression with coefficients (a,b). Indeed, our slice reads as the incorrect set (missing the i=1,…,n)

when it should have been

which is the version I found in my LaTeX file. So I do not know what happened (unless I corrected the LaTeX file at a later date and cannot remember it, but the latest chance on the file reads October 2011…). Fortunately, the resulting slices in a and b and the following R code remain correct. Unfortunately, both French and Japanese translations reproduce the mistake…

## Nature Computational Science

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags computational science, Nature, Nature Computational Science, Nature Reviews Methods Primers, new journal, online journal, Springer-Verlag on September 16, 2020 by xi'anThe Nature group is launching a series of new on-line-only journals, including *Nature Computational Science* which could be of interest to some readers of the ‘Og. It is rather unfortunate that statistics is not explicitly mentioned in the list below. And that the only acknowledged editors are the chief editor, Fernando Chirigati, and the consulting edutor, Yann Sweeney. Nature does not have an editorial board in the standard way

Nature Computational Science is a multidisciplinary journal that focuses on the development and use of computational techniques and mathematical models, as well as their application to address complex problems across a range of scientific disciplines. The journal publishes both fundamental and applied research, from groundbreaking algorithms, tools and frameworks that notably help to advance scientific research, to methodologies that use computing capabilities in novel ways to find new insights and solve challenging real-world problems. By doing so, the journal creates a unique environment to bring together different disciplines to discuss the latest advances in computational science.Disciplines covered by Nature Computational Science include, but are not limited to:

BioinformaticsCheminformaticsGeoinformaticsClimate Modeling and SimulationComputational Physics and CosmologyApplied MathMaterials ScienceUrban Science and TechnologyScientific ComputingMethods, Tools and Platforms for Computational ScienceVisualization and Virtual Reality for Computational Science

Another new Nature on-line journal of potential interest is *Nature Reviews Methods Primers*, albeit it focusses on life science and physics:

Nature Reviews Methods Primersis an online-only journal publishing high-quality Primer articles covering analytical, applied, statistical, theoretical and computational methods used in the life and physical sciences.

## souvenirs de Luminy

Posted in Books, Kids, pictures, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags amazon associates, applied Bayesian analysis, Bayesian data analysis, case studies, CIRM, Jean Morlet Chair, Kerrie Mengersen, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Luminy, Marseille, Pierre Pudlo, Société Mathématique de France, Springer-Verlag, Université Aix Marseille on July 6, 2020 by xi'an## Monte Carlo Markov chains

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags Andrei Kolmogorov, Bayesian Analysis, Bayesian model comparison, book review, CHANCE, Gregor Mendel, iris data, irreducibility, JASA, Jeffreys priors, Kolmogorov axioms, Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance, MCMC, physics, population genetics, pot-pourri, recurrence, Richard Price, Ronald Fisher, Springer-Verlag, textbook, Thomas Bayes, W. Gosset on May 12, 2020 by xi'an**D**arren Wraith pointed out this (currently free access) Springer book by Massimiliano Bonamente [whose family name means *good spirit* in Italian] to me for its use of the unusual *Monte Carlo Markov chain* rendering of MCMC. (Google Trend seems to restrict its use to California!) This is a graduate text for physicists, but one could nonetheless expect more rigour in the processing of the topics. Particularly of the Bayesian topics. Here is a pot-pourri of memorable quotes:

*“Two major avenues are available for the assignment of probabilities. One is based on the repetition of the experiments a large number of times under the same conditions, and goes under the name of the frequentist or classical method. The other is based on a more theoretical knowledge of the experiment, but without the experimental requirement, and is referred to as the Bayesian approach.”*

*“The Bayesian probability is assigned based on a quantitative understanding of the nature of the experiment, and in accord with the Kolmogorov axioms. It is sometimes referred to as *empirical probability*, in recognition of the fact that sometimes the probability of an event is assigned based upon a practical knowledge of the experiment, although without the classical requirement of repeating the experiment for a large number of times. This method is named after the Rev. Thomas Bayes, who pioneered the development of the theory of probability.”*

*“The likelihood P(B/A) represents the probability of making the measurement B given that the model A is a correct description of the experiment.”*

*“…a uniform distribution is normally the logical assumption in the absence of other information.”*

*“The Gaussian distribution can be considered as a special case of the binomial, when the number of tries is sufficiently large.”*

*“This clearly does not mean that the Poisson distribution has no variance—in that case, it would not be a random variable!”*

*“The method of moments therefore returns unbiased estimates for the mean and variance of every distribution in the case of a large number of measurements.”*

*“The great advantage of the Gibbs sampler is the fact that the acceptance is 100 %, since there is no rejection of candidates for the Markov chain, unlike the case of the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm.”*

Let me then point out (or just whine about!) the book using “statistical independence” for plain independence, the use of / rather than Jeffreys’ | for conditioning (and sometimes forgetting \ in some LaTeX formulas), the confusion between events and random variables, esp. when computing the posterior distribution, between models and parameter values, the reliance on discrete probability for continuous settings, as in the Markov chain chapter, confusing density and probability, using Mendel’s pea data without mentioning the unlikely fit to the expected values (or, as put more subtly by Fisher (1936), “the data of most, if not all, of the experiments have been falsified so as to agree closely with Mendel’s expectations”), presenting Fisher’s and Anderson’s *Iris data* [a motive for rejection when George was JASA editor!] as a “a new classic experiment”, mentioning Pearson but not Lee for the data in the 1903 Biometrika paper “On the laws of inheritance in man” (and woman!), and not accounting for the discrete nature of this data in the linear regression chapter, the three page derivation of the Gaussian distribution from a Taylor expansion of the Binomial pmf obtained by differentiating in the integer argument, spending endless pages on deriving standard properties of classical distributions, this appalling mess of adding over the conditioning atoms with no normalisation in a Poisson experiment

,

botching the proof of the CLT, which is treated *before* the Law of Large Numbers, restricting maximum likelihood estimation to the Gaussian and Poisson cases and muddling its meaning by discussing unbiasedness, confusing a drifted Poisson random variable with a drift on its parameter, as well as using the pmf of the Poisson to define an area under the curve (Fig. 5.2), sweeping the improperty of a constant prior under the carpet, defining a null hypothesis as a range of values for a summary statistic, no mention of Bayesian perspectives in the hypothesis testing, model comparison, and regression chapters, having one-dimensional case chapters followed by two-dimensional case chapters, reducing model comparison to the use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, processing bootstrap and jackknife in the Monte Carlo chapter without a mention of importance sampling, stating recurrence results without assuming irreducibility, motivating MCMC by the intractability of the evidence, resorting to the term *link* to designate the current value of a Markov *chain*, incorporating the need for a prior distribution in a terrible description of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, including a discrete proof for its stationarity, spending many pages on early 1990’s MCMC convergence tests rather than discussing the adaptive scaling of proposal distributions, the inclusion of numerical tables [in a 2017 book] and turning Bayes (1763) into Bayes and Price (1763), or Student (1908) into Gosset (1908).

*[Usual disclaimer about potential self-plagiarism: this post or an edited version of it could possibly appear later in my Books Review section in CHANCE. Unlikely, though!]*