Posts filed under General (3152)

May 10, 2017

Briefly

  • “What CPE—and the field—needs now are analysts. Lots and lots of analysts. And we, at least, are hiring DataNerds who want to be JusticeNerds™. With departments now coming in by the state-load, we are inundated with confidential data that needs to be interrogated so that we can answer some of the most fundamental questions in policingfrom Phil Goff (no, not that one) at the Center for Policing Equity, via mathbabe.org
  • If someone claims your female developers are promoted less because they’re treated worse at code review, and you say “no, they’re treated worse because they’re more junior”, you’ve made the basic causal-inference error of conditioning on an intermediate consequence of your input variable.  Felix Salmon on Facebook’s example
  • “For too long social welfare has muddled along with bipartisan policies like shouting at the jobless or not helping people with mental health issues, without really checking if those methods work.” This, from, Lyndon Hood, isn’t going where you might expect.  It’s unfair, but not completely unfair.
  • Another reason ‘breakthrough’ science stories may be misleading: there was a research paper claiming fish preferentially eat microplastic pollution and are serious harmed by it. It has been retracted. There are allegations of deliberate fraud; the data were certainly not made available as the journal’s policy demanded.  If you remember a story on this, go back and see if the same media outlet covers the retraction.
  • I’ve written a few times about the bogus claim that the typical Kiwi pays no “net tax”.  In the other direction, there were stories about  “Tax Freedom Day” this week, on the basis of 34.8% of income going in tax. Yeah, nah.
  • Derek Lowe writes about a new analysis looking at solanezumab, Eli Lilly’s failed treatment for Alzheimer’s. The analysis claims that if the drug had been approved based on the early, weak signals of benefit, the cost to the US government would have been about ten billion dollars over the past four years. That would pay for a lot of trials, or for a lot of other improvements to dementia care.
  • There’s publication bias in research on stock-market patterns. Because of course there is.

This was almost too good to check


And this was too good to ask if it’s a joke:

bf789b08ec6bdc9e30c0f1e9995559be

(it is)

May 9, 2017

Super 18 Predictions for Round 12

Team Ratings for Round 12

The basic method is described on my Department home page.

Here are the team ratings prior to this week’s games, along with the ratings at the start of the season.

Current Rating Rating at Season Start Difference
Hurricanes 17.39 13.22 4.20
Crusaders 13.87 8.75 5.10
Highlanders 9.17 9.17 0.00
Chiefs 8.54 9.75 -1.20
Lions 8.36 7.64 0.70
Blues 3.47 -1.07 4.50
Brumbies 2.02 3.83 -1.80
Sharks 1.40 0.42 1.00
Stormers 0.63 1.51 -0.90
Waratahs -0.91 5.81 -6.70
Jaguares -2.84 -4.36 1.50
Bulls -4.48 0.29 -4.80
Force -8.96 -9.45 0.50
Cheetahs -9.47 -7.36 -2.10
Reds -10.60 -10.28 -0.30
Kings -13.37 -19.02 5.70
Rebels -14.52 -8.17 -6.40
Sunwolves -16.80 -17.76 1.00

 

Performance So Far

So far there have been 87 matches played, 67 of which were correctly predicted, a success rate of 77%.
Here are the predictions for last week’s games.

Game Date Score Prediction Correct
1 Hurricanes vs. Stormers May 05 41 – 22 21.00 TRUE
2 Cheetahs vs. Highlanders May 05 41 – 45 -16.10 TRUE
3 Rebels vs. Lions May 06 10 – 47 -16.40 TRUE
4 Chiefs vs. Reds May 06 46 – 17 22.30 TRUE
5 Waratahs vs. Blues May 06 33 – 40 0.50 FALSE
6 Sharks vs. Force May 06 37 – 12 12.90 TRUE
7 Bulls vs. Crusaders May 06 24 – 62 -11.10 TRUE
8 Jaguares vs. Sunwolves May 06 46 – 39 19.50 TRUE

 

Predictions for Round 12

Here are the predictions for Round 12. The prediction is my estimated expected points difference with a positive margin being a win to the home team, and a negative margin a win to the away team.

Game Date Winner Prediction
1 Blues vs. Cheetahs May 12 Blues 16.90
2 Brumbies vs. Lions May 12 Lions -2.30
3 Crusaders vs. Hurricanes May 13 Hurricanes -3.50
4 Rebels vs. Reds May 13 Reds -0.40
5 Bulls vs. Highlanders May 13 Highlanders -9.70
6 Kings vs. Sharks May 13 Sharks -11.30
7 Jaguares vs. Force May 13 Jaguares 10.10

 

May 2, 2017

Super 18 Predictions for Round 11

Team Ratings for Round 11

The basic method is described on my Department home page.

Here are the team ratings prior to this week’s games, along with the ratings at the start of the season.

Current Rating Rating at Season Start Difference
Hurricanes 17.51 13.22 4.30
Crusaders 12.25 8.75 3.50
Highlanders 9.90 9.17 0.70
Chiefs 8.14 9.75 -1.60
Lions 7.13 7.64 -0.50
Blues 3.02 -1.07 4.10
Brumbies 2.02 3.83 -1.80
Sharks 0.67 0.42 0.20
Stormers 0.51 1.51 -1.00
Waratahs -0.46 5.81 -6.30
Jaguares -2.09 -4.36 2.30
Bulls -2.87 0.29 -3.20
Force -8.24 -9.45 1.20
Cheetahs -10.20 -7.36 -2.80
Reds -10.20 -10.28 0.10
Rebels -13.28 -8.17 -5.10
Kings -13.37 -19.02 5.70
Sunwolves -17.55 -17.76 0.20

 

Performance So Far

So far there have been 79 matches played, 60 of which were correctly predicted, a success rate of 75.9%.
Here are the predictions for last week’s games.

Game Date Score Prediction Correct
1 Highlanders vs. Stormers Apr 28 57 – 14 9.40 TRUE
2 Chiefs vs. Sunwolves Apr 29 27 – 20 32.80 TRUE
3 Reds vs. Waratahs Apr 29 26 – 29 -6.70 TRUE
4 Force vs. Lions Apr 29 15 – 24 -11.70 TRUE
5 Cheetahs vs. Crusaders Apr 29 21 – 48 -17.30 TRUE
6 Kings vs. Rebels Apr 29 44 – 3 -1.10 FALSE
7 Jaguares vs. Sharks Apr 29 25 – 33 2.50 FALSE
8 Brumbies vs. Blues Apr 30 12 – 18 4.20 FALSE

 

Predictions for Round 11

Here are the predictions for Round 11. The prediction is my estimated expected points difference with a positive margin being a win to the home team, and a negative margin a win to the away team.

Game Date Winner Prediction
1 Hurricanes vs. Stormers May 05 Hurricanes 21.00
2 Cheetahs vs. Highlanders May 05 Highlanders -16.10
3 Rebels vs. Lions May 06 Lions -16.40
4 Chiefs vs. Reds May 06 Chiefs 22.30
5 Waratahs vs. Blues May 06 Waratahs 0.50
6 Sharks vs. Force May 06 Sharks 12.90
7 Bulls vs. Crusaders May 06 Crusaders -11.10
8 Jaguares vs. Sunwolves May 06 Jaguares 19.50

 

NRL Predictions for Round 10

Team Ratings for Round 10

The basic method is described on my Department home page.

Here are the team ratings prior to this week’s games, along with the ratings at the start of the season.

Current Rating Rating at Season Start Difference
Storm 8.20 8.49 -0.30
Raiders 7.10 9.94 -2.80
Sharks 6.40 5.84 0.60
Broncos 5.44 4.36 1.10
Sea Eagles 2.39 -2.98 5.40
Panthers 0.50 6.08 -5.60
Eels 0.42 -0.81 1.20
Dragons 0.41 -7.74 8.10
Roosters 0.14 -1.17 1.30
Cowboys -0.23 6.90 -7.10
Titans -1.16 -0.98 -0.20
Bulldogs -1.24 -1.34 0.10
Warriors -4.47 -6.02 1.50
Wests Tigers -4.93 -3.89 -1.00
Rabbitohs -5.89 -1.82 -4.10
Knights -15.13 -16.94 1.80

 

Performance So Far

So far there have been 72 matches played, 40 of which were correctly predicted, a success rate of 55.6%.
Here are the predictions for last week’s games.

Game Date Score Prediction Correct
1 Broncos vs. Panthers Apr 27 32 – 18 7.30 TRUE
2 Rabbitohs vs. Sea Eagles Apr 28 8 – 46 1.10 FALSE
3 Cowboys vs. Eels Apr 28 6 – 26 7.00 FALSE
4 Titans vs. Knights Apr 29 38 – 8 15.10 TRUE
5 Bulldogs vs. Raiders Apr 29 16 – 10 -6.90 FALSE
6 Wests Tigers vs. Sharks Apr 29 16 – 22 -8.20 TRUE
7 Warriors vs. Roosters Apr 30 14 – 13 -1.00 FALSE
8 Dragons vs. Storm Apr 30 22 – 34 -2.80 TRUE

 

Predictions for Round 10

Here are the predictions for Round 10. The prediction is my estimated expected points difference with a positive margin being a win to the home team, and a negative margin a win to the away team.

Game Date Winner Prediction
1 Bulldogs vs. Cowboys May 11 Bulldogs 2.50
2 Dragons vs. Sharks May 12 Sharks -2.50
3 Wests Tigers vs. Rabbitohs May 12 Wests Tigers 4.50
4 Panthers vs. Warriors May 13 Panthers 9.00
5 Storm vs. Titans May 13 Storm 12.90
6 Sea Eagles vs. Broncos May 13 Sea Eagles 0.50
7 Knights vs. Raiders May 14 Raiders -18.70
8 Roosters vs. Eels May 14 Roosters 3.20

 

April 28, 2017

Trends and pauses

There’s a story at the Guardian about whether there has been a ‘pause’ and an ‘acceleration’ in global warming.  The underlying research paper actually puts the question more clearly

While it is clear and undisputed that the global temperature data show short periods of greater and smaller warming trends or even short periods of cooling, the key question is: is this just due to the ever-present noise, i.e. short-term variability in temperature? Or does it signify a change in behavior, e.g. in the underlying warming trend?

Models for climate change predict that annual mean surface temperature should be going up fairly smoothly, so that the trend over a decade or so looks like a straight line. A deviation from this trend might indicate important factors have been left out of the model, or might indicate that the background processes are changing (eg as ice sheets retreat).  If you look at the recent past, compared to a straight-line trend, the observed data dipped below the straight line for a few years and have now caught up.  This raises the question of whether either of these indicated an important change in the underlying processes or a new inadequacy of the models.

To start with, let’s establish that we’re not talking about measurement error here.  The variability of annual mean temperatures around the straight-line trend isn’t like the variability of opinion poll results around a trend. The observed data are the truth.  The world really did warm less for a couple of years; it really has warmed more since then.  The straight line trend omits many factors that we know are relevant: events such as volcanic eruptions that affect the incoming sunlight, and events such as El Niño that affect the balance between air and ocean warming.

The question is whether the straight line trend is changing (fast enough to worry about).  You might reasonably object that the annual mean temperatures are far too crude to make that sort of decision; that you need much more details and more sophisticated modelling. As it turns out, you’d be right. However, the crude appearance of a slowdown and speedup in the annual means has been the fuel for a lot of discussion, so it’s worth evaluating.

What the research paper did was to model the deviations from the straight line trend as a simple random process, ignoring any year-to-year correlation.  The researchers could then evaluate mathematically how likely we would be to see an apparent pause or acceleration in warming with that amount of random variation, if in fact the trend was a perfect straight line. The deviations we have seen in the recent past are no larger than you’d expect just from the variation around a constant trend.

To be clear, this doesn’t mean there have been no changes in the trend.  In fact, we know that El Niño does cause systematic changes.  What it means is that the annual mean temperatures alone aren’t enough information to tell us about changes over a period as short as a few years. You shouldn’t change your beliefs (in any direction) over data like that. If the ‘hiatus’ had gone on for a decade, it would have meant something. If the acceleration goes on for a decade, it will mean something. But two or three years isn’t long enough to say anything.  It’s like looking at a month of data on road deaths: you can’t — or at least shouldn’t  — say much.

April 27, 2017

On debates about data

On Wednesday, the NZ Herald website featured a story and graphics by Harkanwal Singh and Lincoln Tan on immigration. This story was based on permanent and long-term migration data from Statistics New Zealand. The graphics allowed readers to explore the data for themselves. The data source was accurately described and was well targeted to the current political discussion about changing immigration policies.

The specific data set and visualisation used are not the only possible ones, and reasoned criticism of the data and analyses is entirely legitimate. StatsChat encourages that sort of thing. We have done it ourselves, and we have published links when other people do it.

Winston Peters, however, claimed that the Herald story was “fake news” and attributed the conclusions to the reporters being Asian immigrants themselves. The first claim is factually incorrect; the second (in the absence of convincing evidence) is outrageous.

James Curran (Professor of Statistics)
Thomas Lumley (Professor of Statistics)
Chris Triggs (Professor of Statistics)

April 26, 2017

NRL Predictions for Round 9

Team Ratings for Round 9

The basic method is described on my Department home page.

Here are the team ratings prior to this week’s games, along with the ratings at the start of the season.

Current Rating Rating at Season Start Difference
Raiders 8.12 9.94 -1.80
Storm 7.46 8.49 -1.00
Sharks 6.60 5.84 0.80
Broncos 4.89 4.36 0.50
Cowboys 1.83 6.90 -5.10
Dragons 1.15 -7.74 8.90
Panthers 1.05 6.08 -5.00
Roosters 0.32 -1.17 1.50
Sea Eagles -0.54 -2.98 2.40
Eels -1.64 -0.81 -0.80
Bulldogs -2.26 -1.34 -0.90
Titans -2.32 -0.98 -1.30
Rabbitohs -2.96 -1.82 -1.10
Warriors -4.65 -6.02 1.40
Wests Tigers -5.13 -3.89 -1.20
Knights -13.96 -16.94 3.00

 

Performance So Far

So far there have been 64 matches played, 36 of which were correctly predicted, a success rate of 56.2%.
Here are the predictions for last week’s games.

Game Date Score Prediction Correct
1 Raiders vs. Sea Eagles Apr 21 18 – 20 14.80 FALSE
2 Rabbitohs vs. Broncos Apr 21 24 – 25 -5.10 TRUE
3 Eels vs. Panthers Apr 22 18 – 12 -0.20 FALSE
4 Cowboys vs. Knights Apr 22 24 – 12 20.70 TRUE
5 Sharks vs. Titans Apr 22 12 – 16 15.40 FALSE
6 Wests Tigers vs. Bulldogs Apr 23 18 – 12 -0.40 FALSE
7 Roosters vs. Dragons Apr 25 13 – 12 3.00 TRUE
8 Storm vs. Warriors Apr 25 20 – 14 18.00 TRUE

 

Predictions for Round 9

Here are the predictions for Round 9. The prediction is my estimated expected points difference with a positive margin being a win to the home team, and a negative margin a win to the away team.

Game Date Winner Prediction
1 Broncos vs. Panthers Apr 27 Broncos 7.30
2 Rabbitohs vs. Sea Eagles Apr 28 Rabbitohs 1.10
3 Cowboys vs. Eels Apr 28 Cowboys 7.00
4 Titans vs. Knights Apr 29 Titans 15.10
5 Bulldogs vs. Raiders Apr 29 Raiders -6.90
6 Wests Tigers vs. Sharks Apr 29 Sharks -8.20
7 Warriors vs. Roosters Apr 30 Roosters -1.00
8 Dragons vs. Storm Apr 30 Storm -2.80

 

April 25, 2017

Super 18 Predictions for Round 10

Team Ratings for Round 10

The basic method is described on my Department home page.

Here are the team ratings prior to this week’s games, along with the ratings at the start of the season.

Current Rating Rating at Season Start Difference
Hurricanes 17.51 13.22 4.30
Crusaders 11.67 8.75 2.90
Chiefs 9.68 9.75 -0.10
Highlanders 7.88 9.17 -1.30
Lions 7.29 7.64 -0.30
Brumbies 2.63 3.83 -1.20
Stormers 2.53 1.51 1.00
Blues 2.40 -1.07 3.50
Sharks 0.04 0.42 -0.40
Waratahs -0.23 5.81 -6.00
Jaguares -1.46 -4.36 2.90
Bulls -2.87 0.29 -3.20
Force -8.40 -9.45 1.10
Cheetahs -9.61 -7.36 -2.20
Reds -10.42 -10.28 -0.10
Rebels -10.75 -8.17 -2.60
Kings -15.90 -19.02 3.10
Sunwolves -19.10 -17.76 -1.30

 

Performance So Far

So far there have been 71 matches played, 55 of which were correctly predicted, a success rate of 77.5%.
Here are the predictions for last week’s games.

Game Date Score Prediction Correct
1 Hurricanes vs. Brumbies Apr 21 56 – 21 16.70 TRUE
2 Lions vs. Jaguares Apr 21 24 – 21 14.10 TRUE
3 Highlanders vs. Sunwolves Apr 22 40 – 15 31.80 TRUE
4 Crusaders vs. Stormers Apr 22 57 – 24 10.40 TRUE
5 Waratahs vs. Kings Apr 22 24 – 26 22.60 FALSE
6 Force vs. Chiefs Apr 22 7 – 16 -14.80 TRUE
7 Bulls vs. Cheetahs Apr 22 20 – 14 10.80 TRUE
8 Sharks vs. Rebels Apr 22 9 – 9 16.80 FALSE

 

Predictions for Round 10

Here are the predictions for Round 10. The prediction is my estimated expected points difference with a positive margin being a win to the home team, and a negative margin a win to the away team.

Game Date Winner Prediction
1 Highlanders vs. Stormers Apr 28 Highlanders 9.40
2 Chiefs vs. Sunwolves Apr 29 Chiefs 32.80
3 Reds vs. Waratahs Apr 29 Waratahs -6.70
4 Force vs. Lions Apr 29 Lions -11.70
5 Cheetahs vs. Crusaders Apr 29 Crusaders -17.30
6 Kings vs. Rebels Apr 29 Rebels -1.10
7 Jaguares vs. Sharks Apr 29 Jaguares 2.50
8 Brumbies vs. Blues Apr 30 Brumbies 4.20

 

April 24, 2017

Briefly

  • The Herald (from the Daily Mail) recommends drinking beetroot juice, based on a study of brain waves: “This finding could help people who are at-risk of brain deterioration to remain functionally independent, such as those with a family history of dementia“.  The NHS Choices blog commented on a similar study by the same research group in 2010; their comments still apply.
  • Testimonials and motivational speakers tell you “I did this and look how it turned out”.  As XKCD illustrates, results may not be typical 
  • “Data made available for reanalysis, a journal that promptly responded to the outcomes of that reanalysis, and a finding that could save lives.” (from Stat). Another moral to the story: don’t edit data by copy-and-paste.
  • The company says it has studies that back up its claims, but refused to release them on the grounds that they are commercial-in-confidence.” It appears that Johnson & Johnson would rather pull their ad than let people look at the evidence. (from The Age)
  • it’s not acceptable if you’ve got the information readily available to leave it to the last minute for release, that’s not what the Act says you can do”  The Chief Ombudsman interviewed by Newsroom  about the Official Information Act.

And finally

If you give a mouse a strawberry…

 

So, the Herald (from the Daily Mailhas a headline Why women should eat a punnet of strawberries a day. That seems a little extreme, especially as punnets of strawberries are fairly seasonal.

The story leads off with

Eating just 15 strawberries a day protected mice from aggressive breast cancer in a new medical study.

So, first of all, mice, not women.  Also, when you go to the open-access research paper, it didn’t exactly ‘protect’ the mice.  The mice had cells from a breast cancer cell culture implanted under their skins, and the study looked at the change in size of those implanted tumours, not at spread within the mouse or health of the mouse or anything like that.  It’s a useful approach to learning about cancer cell biology, but not all that close to preventing or treating human cancers.

More surprisingly, though, “15 strawberries a day” seems quite a lot for a mouse — several times its body weight. The story changes a bit later:

In total, the strawberries made up 15 percent of the mice’s diet. That is just shy of the recommended daily amount of fruit we should eat each day, and would be equivalent to a punnet of strawberries, reported the Daily Mail.

A figure of 15% seems more plausible than 15 strawberries, though it’s still not quite true, since actually the mice were given concentrated strawberry extract in their food rather than strawberries.  Using the standard (lowish) estimate of 2000 kcal/day, 15% of calories would  be 300 kcal/day  which would take nearly a kilogram of strawberries.

Previous studies have already shown that eating between 10 and 15 strawberries a day can make arteries healthier by reducing blood cholesterol levels.

There isn’t a reference, but the same researcher has studied strawberries and cholesterol (this time even in humans). The ‘between 10 and 15 strawberries a day’ was actually 500g per day.

[via Sam Warburton]