Archive for University of Amsterdam

a novel discrepancy measure

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , on June 1, 2025 by xi'an

My friend EJ Wagenmakers, along with his colleague  Raoul Grasman, have proposed a novel measure of discrepancy between two distributions that they formulate through a basic Bayesian lens as an expected posterior probability, written as

D_{\mathrm EP}(f||g) = \int_{\mathfrak X} \frac{f(x)}{f(x)+g(x)}f(x)\,\text dx

(with no priors harmed in the process!) in case both distributions are absolutely continuous wrt a common dominating measure, with densities f and g. Which I have not met before. This discrepancy has nicer properties than Kullback-Leibler in that it is symmetric, that

D_{\mathrm EP}(f||g) = \int_{\mathfrak X}\frac{1}{f(x)^{-1}+g(x)^{-1}}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}\,\text dx

does not require absolute continuity, and suffers less from tail influence and from asymmetric convergence speeds between null and alternative. From a truly Bayesian perspective, comparing two posterior predictive densities this way is less appealing since they are not available in closed form, but the posterior probability in favour of model f can be replaced with a Monte Carlo estimate.

Bayesian inference from the ground up [no book review]

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 7, 2023 by xi'an

Bayesian thinking for toddler & Bayesian probabilities for babies [book reviews]

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on January 27, 2023 by xi'an

My friend E.-J.  Wagenmakers sent me a copy of Bayesian Thinking for Toddlers, “a must-have for any toddler with even a passing interest in Ockham’s razor and the prequential principle.” E.-J. wrote the story and Viktor Beekman (of thesis’ cover fame!) drew the illustrations. The book can be read for free on https://psyarxiv.com/w5vbp/, but not purchased as publishers were not interested and self-publishing was not available at a high enough quality level. Hence, in the end, 200 copies were made as JASP material, with me being the happy owner of one of these. The story follows two young girls competing for dinosaur expertise, and being rewarded by cookies, in proportion to the probability of providing the correct answer to two dinosaur questions. Toddlers may get less enthusiastic than grown-ups about the message, but they will love the drawings (and the questions if they are into dinosaurs).

This reminded me of the Bayesian probabilities for babies book, by Chris Ferrie, which details the computation of the probability that a cookie contains candy when the first bite holds none. It is more genuinely intended for young kids, in shape and design, as can be checked on a YouTube video, with an hypothetical population of cookies (with and without candy) being the proxy for the prior distribution. I hope no baby will be traumatised from being exposed too early to the notions of prior and posterior. Only data can tell, twenty years from now, if the book induced a spike or a collapse in the proportion of Bayesian statisticians!

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

Calling Bullshit: The Art of Scepticism in a Data‑Driven World [EJ’s book review]

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags , , , , , on August 26, 2020 by xi'an

“…this book will train readers to be statistically savvy at a time when immunity to misinformation is essential: not just for the survival of liberal democracy, as the authors assert, but for survival itself.Perhaps a crash course on bullshit detection should be a mandatory part of the school curriculum.”

In the latest issue of Nature, EJ Wagenmaker has written a book review of the book Calling Bullshit, by  Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West. Book written out of a course taught by the authors at the University of Washington during Spring Quarter 2017 and aimed at teaching students how to debunk bullshit, that is, misleading exploitation of statistics and machine learning. And subsequently turned into a book. Which I have not read. In his overall positive review EJ regrets the poor data visualisation scholarship of the authors, who could have demonstrated and supported the opportunity for a visual debunking of the original data. And the lack of alternative solutions like Bayesian analysis to counteract p-fishing. Of course, the need for debunking and exposing statistically sounding misinformation has never been so present.

aftermaths of retiring significance

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , on April 10, 2019 by xi'an


Beyond mentions in the general press of the retire significance paper, as in Retraction Watch, Bloomberg, The Guardian, Vox, and NPR, not to mention the large number of comments on Andrew’s blog, and Deborah Mayo’s tribune on a ban on free speech (!), Nature of “the week after” contained three letters from Ioannidis, calling for more stringent thresholds, Johnson, essentially if unclearly stating the same, and my friends from Amsterdam, Alexander Ly and E.J. Wagenmakers, along with Julia Haaf, getting back to the Great Old Ones, to defend the usefulness of testing versus estimation.