an insufficient puzzle

A rather peculiar and challenging question on X validated,  concerning the absolute impossibility of a conditional expectation, given a non-sufficient statistic, being still a statistic (i.e., being independent on the parameter θ). Inspired from the following except from Hogg and Craig. Namely, could there exist a specific function φ(·) such that E[φ(Y¹)|Y³] does not depend on the parameter θ? I could not find a satisfactory explanation right away (and the question remains unanswered!)

After posting this entry, I thought anew that cases when the unbiased estimator φ(Y¹) is not a bijective transform of Y¹ would work as a counter-example, since Y³=φ(Y¹) is not sufficient but E[φ(Y¹) |φ(Y¹) ]=φ(Y¹) is not involving θ… And this case does not exhibit a paradox in that the variance does not decrease any further.

conditioning on zero probability events

An interesting question on X validated as to how come a statistic T(X) can be sufficient when its support depends on the parameter θ behind the distribution of X. The reasoning there being that the distribution of X given T(X)=t does depend on θ since it is not defined for some values of θ … Which is not correct in that the conditional distribution of X depends on the realisation of T, meaning that if this realisation is impossible, then the conditional is arbitrary and of no relevance. Which also led me to tangentially notice and bemoan that most (Stack) exchanges on conditioning on zero probability events are pretty unsatisfactory in that they insist on interpreting P(X=x) [equal to zero] in a literal sense when it is merely a notation in the continuous case. And undefined when X has a discrete support. (Conditional probability is always a sore point for my students!)

p-values, Bayes factors, and sufficiency

Among the many papers published in this special issue of TAS on statistical significance or lack thereof, there is a paper I had already read before (besides ours!), namely the paper by Jonty Rougier (U of Bristol, hence the picture) on connecting p-values, likelihood ratio, and Bayes factors. Jonty starts from the notion that the p-value is induced by a transform, summary, statistic of the sample, t(x), the larger this t(x), the less likely the null hypothesis, with density f⁰(x), to create an embedding model by exponential tilting, namely the exponential family with dominating measure f⁰, and natural statistic, t(x), and a positive parameter θ. In this embedding model, a Bayes factor can be derived from any prior on θ and the p-value satisfies an interesting double inequality, namely that it is less than the likelihood ratio, itself lower than any (other) Bayes factor. One novel aspect from my perspective is that I had thought up to now that this inequality only holds for one-dimensional problems, but there is no constraint here on the dimension of the data x. A remark I presumably made to Jonty on the first version of the paper is that the p-value itself remains invariant under a bijective increasing transform of the summary t(.). This means that there exists an infinity of such embedding families and that the bound remains true over all such families, although the value of this minimum is beyond my reach (could it be the p-value itself?!). This point is also clear in the justification of the analysis thanks to the Pitman-Koopman lemma. Another remark is that the perspective can be inverted in a more realistic setting when a genuine alternative model M¹ is considered and a genuine likelihood ratio is available. In that case the Bayes factor remains smaller than the likelihood ratio, itself larger than the p-value induced by the likelihood ratio statistic. Or its log. The induced embedded exponential tilting is then a geometric mixture of the null and of the locally optimal member of the alternative. I wonder if there is a parameterisation of this likelihood ratio into a p-value that would turn it into a uniform variate (under the null). Presumably not. While the approach remains firmly entrenched within the realm of p-values and Bayes factors, this exploration of a natural embedding of the original p-value is definitely worth mentioning in a class on the topic! (One typo though, namely that the Bayes factor is mentioned to be lower than one, which is incorrect.)

severe testing : beyond Statistics wars?!

A timely start to my reading Deborah Mayo’s [properly printed] Statistical Inference as Severe Testing (How to get beyond the Statistics Wars) on the Armistice Day, as it seems to call for just this, an armistice! And the opportunity of a long flight to Oaxaca in addition… However, this was only the start and it took me several further weeks to peruse seriously enough the book (SIST) before writing the (light) comments below. (Receiving a free copy from CUP and then a second one directly from Deborah after I mentioned the severe sabotage!)

Indeed, I sort of expected a different content when taking the subtitle How to get beyond the Statistics Wars at face value. But on the opposite the book is actually very severely attacking anything not in the line of the Cox-Mayo severe testing line. Mostly Bayesian approach(es) to the issue! For instance, Jim Berger’s construct of his reconciliation between Fisher, Neyman, and Jeffreys is surgically deconstructed over five pages and exposed as a Bayesian ploy. Similarly, the warnings from Dennis Lindley and other Bayesians that the p-value attached with the Higgs boson experiment are not probabilities that the particle does not exist are met with ridicule. (Another go at Jim’s Objective Bayes credentials is found in the squared myth of objectivity chapter. Maybe more strongly than against staunch subjectivists like Jay Kadane. And yet another go when criticising the Berger and Sellke 1987 lower bound results. Which even extends to Vale Johnson’s UMP-type Bayesian tests.)

“Inference should provide posterior probabilities, final degrees of support, belief, probability (…) not provided by Bayes factors.” (p.443)

Another subtitle of the book could have been testing in Flatland given the limited scope of the models considered with one or at best two parameters and almost always a Normal setting. I have no idea whatsoever how the severity principle would apply in more complex models, with e.g. numerous nuisance parameters. By sticking to the simplest possible models, the book can carry on with the optimality concepts of the early days, like sufficiency (p.147) and and monotonicity and uniformly most powerful procedures, which only make sense in a tiny universe.

“The estimate is really a hypothesis about the value of the parameter.  The same data warrant the hypothesis constructed!” (p.92)

There is an entire section on the lack of difference between confidence intervals and the dual acceptance regions, although the lack of unicity in defining either of them should come as a bother. Especially outside Flatland. Actually the following section, from p.193 onward, reminds me of fiducial arguments, the more because Schweder and Hjort are cited there. (With a curve like Fig. 3.3. operating like a cdf on the parameter μ but no dominating measure!)

“The Fisher-Neyman dispute is pathological: there’s no disinterring the truth of the matter (…) Fisher grew to renounce performance goals he himself had held when it was found that fiducial solutions disagreed with them.”(p.390)

Similarly the chapter on the “myth of the “the myth of objectivity””(p.221) is mostly and predictably targeting Bayesian arguments. The dismissal of Frank Lad’s arguments for subjectivity ends up [or down] with a rather cheap that it “may actually reflect their inability to do the math” (p.228). [CoI: I once enjoyed a fantastic dinner cooked by Frank in Christchurch!] And the dismissal of loss function requirements in Ziliak and McCloskey is similarly terse, if reminding me of Aris Spanos’ own arguments against decision theory. (And the arguments about the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox as well.)

“It’s not clear how much of the current Bayesian revolution is obviously Bayesian.” (p.405)

The section (Tour IV) on model uncertainty (or against “all models are wrong”) is somewhat limited in that it is unclear what constitutes an adequate (if wrong) model. And calling for the CLT cavalry as backup (p.299) is not particularly convincing.

It is not that everything is controversial in SIST (!) and I found agreement in many (isolated) statements. Especially in the early chapters. Another interesting point made in the book is to question whether or not the likelihood principle at all makes sense within a testing setting. When two models (rather than a point null hypothesis) are X-examined, it is a rare occurrence that the likelihood factorises any further than the invariance by permutation of iid observations. Which reminded me of our earlier warning on the dangers of running ABC for model choice based on (model specific) sufficient statistics. Plus a nice sprinkling of historical anecdotes, esp. about Neyman’s life, from Poland, to Britain, to California, with some time in Paris to attend Borel’s and Lebesgue’s lectures. Which is used as a background for a play involving Bertrand, Borel, Neyman and (Egon) Pearson. Under the title “Les Miserables Citations” [pardon my French but it should be Les Misérables if Hugo is involved! Or maybe les gilets jaunes…] I also enjoyed the sections on reuniting Neyman-Pearson with Fisher, while appreciating that Deborah Mayo wants to stay away from the “minefields” of fiducial inference. With, mot interestingly, Neyman himself trying in 1956 to convince Fisher of the fallacy of the duality between frequentist and fiducial statements (p.390). Wisely quoting Nancy Reid at BFF4 stating the unclear state of affair on confidence distributions. And the final pages reawakened an impression I had at an earlier stage of the book, namely that the ABC interpretation on Bayesian inference in Rubin (1984) could come closer to Deborah Mayo’s quest for comparative inference (p.441) than she thinks, in that producing parameters producing pseudo-observations agreeing with the actual observations is an “ability to test accordance with a single model or hypothesis”.

“Although most Bayesians these days disavow classic subjective Bayesian foundations, even the most hard-nosed. “we’re not squishy” Bayesian retain the view that a prior distribution is an important if not the best way to bring in background information.” (p.413)

A special mention to Einstein’s cafe (p.156), which reminded me of this picture of Einstein’s relative Cafe I took while staying in Melbourne in 2016… (Not to be confused with the Markov bar in the same city.) And a fairly minor concern that I find myself quoted in the sections priors: a gallimaufry (!) and… Bad faith Bayesianism (!!), with the above qualification. Although I later reappear as a pragmatic Bayesian (p.428), although a priori as a counter-example!

Binomial vs Bernoulli

An interesting confusion on X validated where someone was convinced that using the Bernoulli representation of a sequence of Bernoulli experiments led to different posterior probabilities of two possible models than when using their Binomial representation. The confusion actually stemmed from using different conditionals, namely N¹=4,N²=1 in the first case (for a model M¹ with two probabilities p¹ and p²) and N¹+N²=5 in the second case (for a model M² with a single probability p⁰). While (N¹,N²) is sufficient for the first model and N¹+N² is sufficient for the second model, P(M¹|N¹,N²) is not commensurable to P(M²|N¹+N²)! Another illustration of the fickleness of the notion of sufficiency when comparing models.