stigma01

Why Statistics is worth the Stigma: 

Why Statistics is worth the Stigma Letters and Science Faculty Forum 23 April 2001 P.B. Stark stark@stat.berkeley.edu http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark

How to end a Conversation: 

How to end a Conversation “I’m a Statistician.” “I’ve wanted to be a Statistician ever since I was 5.” But Being a statistician is license to dabble. Some of the smartest people in widely different fields take time to explain to me what they do.

Two Ideas from Statistics: 

Two Ideas from Statistics Hypothesis Testing Interpolation

Hypothesis Testing: 

Hypothesis Testing Choice between two “theories” about the world: null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis. Decision: Reject null hypothesis or not? Two kinds of error: Type I: reject null when null is true Type II : don’t reject null when null is false

Tradeoff between Errors: 

Tradeoff between Errors Airport metal detector Dental exam Legal system Can characterize the difference between conservatives and liberals as a preference for different errors in different circumstances.

Earthquake Prediction: 

Earthquake Prediction Method is proposed. Some predictions are followed by earthquakes. Does the method work? Often formulated as a hypothesis test. Null hypothesis: method does not work Greek VAN group proposed prediction method using electrical signals. Different scientists came to opposite conclusions about VAN efficacy.

Null Hypothesis in Earthquake Prediction: 

Null Hypothesis in Earthquake Prediction The null hypothesis “method does not work” is not precise enough to test. Need a chance model for the data under the assumption that the method doesn’t work. Most common model: earthquakes occur at random, according to a particular stochastic law. Conclusions differed because earthquake models differed.

Conclusions depend on Earthquake Model: 

Conclusions depend on Earthquake Model Tests held predictions fixed, compared success rate on actual seismicity with success rate on random seismicity. Crazy, IMHO: No sane seismologist would ignore previous seismicity in making predictions, so why hold predictions constant when changing quakes? Rejecting might mean only that the model for seismicity is bad, not that the predictions are good.

Different Approach: 

Different Approach Seismicity is fixed as observed. Compare success rate of tested predictions with success rate of similar predictions. Rules for comparison predictions Can only use the past, not the future. Can use observed seismicity and extra randomness, but nothing else.

Straw-Man Prediction Rule: 

Straw-Man Prediction Rule After every earthquake, toss a coin. Heads: predict new earthquake within 20 days. Tails: don’t predict. Compare success rate of this method in repeated trials (strings of coin tosses) with success rate of VAN. If better much of the time, conclude VAN not helpful. If worse, no conclusion.

Results for VAN: 

Results for VAN (a) VAN predictions reported in Varotsos et al., 1996, vs. PDE for 1987-1989, 39 events with mb4.7. (b) Coin test: 23-day alarm with probability 23/39 after each event. (c) 90th percentile of 1000. (d) median (e) mean.

Interpolation and Missing Data: 

Interpolation and Missing Data Filling in missing data depends at least as much on the method as on the data. “Stiff” interpolator can give biggest structure where there is no datum. Errors in seismology (topography of the core-mantle boundary) and cosmology (cosmic microwave background).

Topography of Core-Mantle Boundary: 

Topography of Core-Mantle Boundary Fit observations of time it takes waves to travel from earthquakes to receivers with smooth functions. Conclude reality is like the picture. Biggest structure is in gaps where there is no datum. Algorithms find structure when there is none—just like metal&plastic interpolators. Property of geometry and method, not Earth or data.

Cosmic Microwave Background: 

Cosmic Microwave Background Fit observations of sky temperature with smooth functions. Conclude reality is like picture. Biggest structure is in gaps where there is no datum. Algorithms find structure when there is none—just like metal&plastic interpolators. Property of geometry and method, not of big bang or data.

Fun Consulting Projects: 

Fun Consulting Projects U.S. Department of Justice Child Online Protection Act: how much porn is on the internet; how easily and how often do minors find it? Federal Trade Commission Sampling to test Jenny Craig’s advertising claims. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Indirect bucketing by T-bond traders. New York City Law Department Evaluating commercial real estate tax assessments.

Other Projects: 

Other Projects employment discrimination water treatment trade secret litigation targeted web advertising legislation to close CA commercial abalone fisheries oil exploration toxic tort litigation insurance litigation quality control of IC mask manufacturing equipment

Capture-Recapture: 

Capture-Recapture How to estimate #fish in a pond? Catch 100 fish, tag and release. Wait for fish to mix with the others. Catch another 100. Count # with tags.

The Estimate: 

The Estimate

Assumptions: 

Assumptions 2nd catch like a random sample from pond Fish don’t enter, leave, hatch, or die between catches Tagged and untagged fish equally hard to catch Tags don’t fall off; impossible to misread.

Census Errors: 

Census Errors Fails to count person where should: gross omission Counts in wrong place, fictitious, double-count: erroneous enumeration Historically, gross omissions exceed erroneous enumerations—net undercount. 2000 census seems to have overcount

Census Adjustment: 

Census Adjustment Take Census; take sample of blocks later. Use match rate within demographic groups to estimate rate people are missed in each group Synthesize population in each block by adjusting counts in each group

Assumptions: 

Assumptions Participation in census doesn’t affect participation in sample Can match sample records against census perfectly. Undercount constant within demographic groups across geography

Simpson’s Paradox: 

Simpson’s Paradox Gender bias in graduate admissions, UCB. In 1973 8,442 men and 4,321 women applied. 44% of men and 35% of women were admitted. Which department(s) discriminated, prima facie?

1973 UCB Graduate Admits: 6 biggest Departments: 

1973 UCB Graduate Admits: 6 biggest Departments

The Paradox: 

The Paradox What’s true for the parts isn’t true for the whole.