Archive for typos

a computational approach to statistical learning [book review]

Posted in Books, R, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 15, 2020 by xi'an

This book was sent to me by CRC Press for review for CHANCE. I read it over a few mornings while [confined] at home and found it much more computational than statistical. In the sense that the authors go quite thoroughly into the construction of standard learning procedures, including home-made R codes that obviously help in understanding the nitty-gritty of these procedures, what they call try and tell, but that the statistical meaning and uncertainty of these procedures remain barely touched by the book. This is not uncommon to the machine-learning literature where prediction error on the testing data often appears to be the final goal but this is not so traditionally statistical. The authors introduce their work as (a computational?) supplementary to Elements of Statistical Learning, although I would find it hard to either squeeze both books into one semester or dedicate two semesters on the topic, especially at the undergraduate level.

Each chapter includes an extended analysis of a specific dataset and this is an asset of the book. If sometimes over-reaching in selling the predictive power of the procedures. Printed extensive R scripts may prove tiresome in the long run, at least to me, but this may simply be a generational gap! And the learning models are mostly unidimensional, see eg the chapter on linear smoothers with imho a profusion of methods. (Could someone please explain the point of Figure 4.9 to me?) The chapter on neural networks has a fairly intuitive introduction that should reach fresh readers. Although meeting the handwritten digit data made me shift back to the late 1980’s, when my wife was working on automatic character recognition. But I found the visualisation of the learning weights for character classification hinting at their shape (p.254) most alluring!

Among the things I am missing when reading through this book, a life-line on the meaning of a statistical model beyond prediction, attention to misspecification, uncertainty and variability, especially when reaching outside the range of the learning data, and further especially when returning regression outputs with significance stars, discussions on the assessment tools like the distance used in the objective function (for instance lacking in scale invariance when adding errors on the regression coefficients) or the unprincipled multiplication of calibration parameters, some asymptotics, at least one remark on the information loss due to splitting the data into chunks, giving some (asymptotic) substance when using “consistent”, waiting for a single page 319 to see the “data quality issues” being mentioned. While the methodology is defended by algebraic and calculus arguments, there is very little on the probability side, which explains why the authors consider that the students need “be familiar  with the concepts of expectation, bias and variance”. And only that. A few paragraphs on the Bayesian approach are doing more harm than well, especially with so little background in probability and statistics.

The book possibly contains the most unusual introduction to the linear model I can remember reading: Coefficients as derivatives… Followed by a very detailed coverage of matrix inversion and singular value decomposition. (Would not sound like the #1 priority were I to give such a course.)

The inevitable typo “the the” was found on page 37! A less common typo was Jensen’s inequality spelled as “Jenson’s inequality”. Both in the text (p.157) and in the index, followed by a repetition of the same formula in (6.8) and (6.9). A “stwart” (p.179) that made me search a while for this unknown verb. Another typo in the Nadaraya-Watson kernel regression, when the bandwidth h suddenly turns into n (and I had to check twice because of my poor eyesight!). An unusual use of partition where the sets in the partition are called partitions themselves. Similarly, fluctuating use of dots for products in dimension one, including a form of ⊗ for matricial product (in equation (8.25)) followed next page by the notation for the Hadamard product. I also suspect the matrix K in (8.68) is missing 1’s or am missing the point, since K is the number of kernels on the next page, just after a picture of the Eiffel Tower…) A surprising number of references for an undergraduate textbook, with authors sometimes cited with full name and sometimes cited with last name. And technical reports that do not belong to this level of books. Let me add the pedant remark that Conan Doyle wrote more novels “that do not include his character Sherlock Holmes” than novels which do include Sherlock.

[Disclaimer about potential self-plagiarism: this post or an edited version will eventually appear in my Books Review section in CHANCE.]

a glaring mistake

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , on November 28, 2018 by xi'an

Someone posted this question about Bayes factors in my book on Saturday morning and I could not believe the glaring typo pointed out there had gone through the centuries without anyone noticing! There should be no index 0 or 1 on the θ’s in either integral (or indices all over). I presume I made this typo when cutting & pasting from the previous formula (which addressed the case of two point null hypotheses), but I am quite chagrined that I sabotaged the definition of the Bayes factor for generations of readers of the Bayesian Choice. Apologies!!!

I thought I did make a mistake but I was wrong…

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 14, 2018 by xi'an

One of my students in my MCMC course at ENSAE seems to specialise into spotting typos in the Monte Carlo Statistical Methods book as he found an issue in every problem he solved! He even went back to a 1991 paper of mine on Inverse Normal distributions, inspired from a discussion with an astronomer, Caroline Soubiran, and my two colleagues, Gilles Celeux and Jean Diebolt. The above derivation from the massive Gradsteyn and Ryzhik (which I discovered thanks to Mary Ellen Bock when arriving in Purdue) is indeed incorrect as the final term should be the square root of 2β rather than 8β. However, this typo does not impact the normalising constant of the density, K(α,μ,τ), unless I am further confused.

approximative Laplace

Posted in Books, R, Statistics with tags , , , , on August 18, 2018 by xi'an

I came across this question on X validated that wondered about one of our examples in Monte Carlo Statistical Methods. We have included a section on Laplace approximations in the Monte Carlo integration chapter, with a bit of reluctance on my side as this type of integral approximation does not directly connect to Monte Carlo methods. Even less in the case of the example as we aimed at replacing a coverage probability for a Gamma distribution with a formal Laplace approximation. Formal due to the lack of asymptotics, besides the length of the interval (a,b) which probability is approximated. Hence, on top of the typos, the point of the example is not crystal clear, in that it does not show much more than the step-function approximation to the function converges as the interval length gets to zero. For instance, using instead a flat approximation produces an almost as good approximation:

>  xact(5,2,7,9)
[1] 0.1933414
> laplace(5,2,7,9)
[1] 0.1933507
> flat(5,2,7,9)
[1] 0.1953668

What may be more surprising is the resilience of the approximation as the width of the interval increases:

> xact(5,2,5,11)
[1] 0.53366
> lapl(5,2,5,11)
[1] 0.5354954
> plain(5,2,5,11)
[1] 0.5861004
> quad(5,2,5,11)
[1] 0.434131

ARS: when to update?

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , on May 25, 2017 by xi'an

An email I got today from Heng Zhou wondered about the validity of the above form of the ARS algorithm. As printed in our book Monte Carlo Statistical Methods. The worry is that in the original version of the algorithm the envelope of the log-concave target f(.) is only updated for rejected values. My reply to the question is that there is no difference in the versions towards returning a value simulated from f, since changing the envelope between simulations does not modify the accept-reject nature of the algorithm. There is no issue of dependence between the simulations of this adaptive accept-reject method, all simulations remain independent. The question is rather one about efficiency, namely does it pay to update the envelope(s) when accepting a new value and I think it does because the costly part is the computation of f(x), rather than the call to the piecewise-exponential envelope. Correct me if I am wrong!