HN user

samch93

160 karma
Posts9
Comments38
View on HN

A (deep) NN is just a really complicated data model, the way one treats the estimation of its parameters and prediction of new data determines whether one is a Bayesian or a frequentist. The Bayesian assigns a distribution to the parameters and then conditions on the data to obtain a posterior distribution based on which a posterior predictive distribution is obtained for new data, while the frequentist treats parameters as fixed quantities and estimates them from the likelihood alone, e.g., with maximum likelihood (potentially using some hacks such as regularization, which themselves can be given a Bayesian interpretation).

probably this article: Hoekstra, R., Morey, R.D., Rouder, J.N. et al. Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals. Psychon Bull Rev 21, 1157–1164 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0572-3

another good article on misinterpretation of p-values and confidence intervals is: Greenland, S., Senn, S.J., Rothman, K.J. et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 31, 337–350 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3

I agree that there are many things Fisher got wrong (eugenics, tobacco lobbying, etc.), but his contributions to statistics (e.g., maximum likelihood or ANOVA) and genetics are among the most fundamental of the 20th century.

try the following R code:

fisher.test(matrix(c(786, 298, 22999, 11156), nrow = 2))

#> Fisher's Exact Test for Count Data

#>

#>data: matrix(c(786, 298, 22999, 11156), nrow = 2)

#>p-value = 0.0003266

#>alternative hypothesis: true odds ratio is not equal to 1

#>95 percent confidence interval:

#> 1.116046 1.469612

#>sample estimates:

#>odds ratio

#> 1.279435

It‘s such a tragedy that he died so young. Prof Mackay was a role model who impacted our world in many positive ways (e.g. his work in information theory, Bayesian statistics, environmental science). I recommend his lecture on information theory which is available on youtube [1]. He also documented the progress of his cancer very detailed on his blog [2], which is a very interesting (and sad) read.

[1] https://youtu.be/BCiZc0n6COY

[2] http://itila.blogspot.com/?m=1

The ASA recently published a new statement which is more optimistic about the use of p-values [1]. I myself also think that correctly used p-values are in many situations a good tool for making sense out of data. Of course, a decision should never be conducted on a p-value alone, but the same could also be said about confidence/credible intervals, Bayes factors, relative belief ratios, and any other inferential tool available (and I‘m saying this as someone who is doing research in Bayesian hypothesis testing methodology). Data analysts always need to use common sense and put the data at hand into broader context.

[1] https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-applied-statist...

This is the typical „CS-people“ reaction to learning R. R is a language written by statisticians for statisticians which can be a good but also a bad thing. Fact is that R is the lingua franca of statistics, most new methods will be first available in R, rarely in python, almost never in julia. Despite the superior design of julia, there are good reasons to still use R, for example, there are many state of the art libraries such as ggplot2 or data.table which beat any alternative from python or julia.

Native swiss here and would not sign that swiss german can‘t be understood by germans and that it is a separate language. Austrians and germans who live at the border can very well understand us and their dialects share many features with swiss german, more so than with some german dialects from the north. I think that categorizing swiss german as a separate language is very much an act of balkanization. It is part of the german language whichs spans a large geographic area with many different variations.

In my opinion, if such a culture- and time-dependent phenomenon is interesting, it is still worth studying. If this dependence is obvious, researchers should simply not claim that the phenomenon is generalizable.

The replication crisis has provoked many discussions on similar issues among psychologists, i.e. some dinosaurs question the value of direct replication studies and prefer conceptual replications (see for example this paper by Simons https://www3.nd.edu/~ghaeffel/Value.pdf). I believe that direct replication is the only way to verify the credibility of scientific discoveries, and certainly most new generation psychological researchers agree on this.

I agree that in general statistics is more concerned about inference, while machine learning focuses on prediction. On the other hand, there is such a huge overlap between the fields that it is hard to make a distinction. Also there are statistical fields which focus more on prediction the same way as ML does. For example, in geostatistics prediction is often the only goal, e.g. to predict heavy metal concentration across a domain. People accept that it is impossible to explain every bit of spatial variation and just model it by a gaussian process (the same gaussian process used in ML).