andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-212 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: José Iparraguirre writes: There’s a letter in the latest issue of The Economist (July 31st) signed by Sir Richard Branson (Virgin), Michael Masters (Masters Capital Management) and David Frenk (Better Markets) about an “>OECD report on speculation and the prices of commodities, which includes the following: “The report uses a Granger causality test to measure the relationship between the level of commodities futures contracts held by swap dealers, and the prices of those commodities. Granger tests, however, are of dubious applicability to extremely volatile variables like commodities prices.” The report says: Granger causality is a standard statistical technique for determining whether one time series is useful in forecasting another. It is important to bear in mind that the term causality is used in a statistical sense, and not in a philosophical one of structural causation. More precisely a variable A is said to Granger cause B if knowing the time paths of B and A toge
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Granger tests, however, are of dubious applicability to extremely volatile variables like commodities prices. [sent-2, score-0.486]
2 ” The report says: Granger causality is a standard statistical technique for determining whether one time series is useful in forecasting another. [sent-3, score-0.473]
3 It is important to bear in mind that the term causality is used in a statistical sense, and not in a philosophical one of structural causation. [sent-4, score-0.333]
4 More precisely a variable A is said to Granger cause B if knowing the time paths of B and A together improve the forecast of B based on its own time path, thus providing a measure of incremental predictability. [sent-5, score-0.346]
5 In our case the time series of interest are market measures of returns, implied volatility, and realized volatility, or variable B. [sent-6, score-0.399]
6 Simply put, Granger’s test asks the question: Can past values of trader positions be used to predict either market returns or volatility? [sent-10, score-0.616]
7 This seems clear enough, but the authors muddy the water later on by writing: There is a positive contemporaneous association between changes in net positions held by index traders and price changes (returns) in the CBOT wheat market . [sent-11, score-1.045]
8 this contemporaneous analysis cannot distinguish between the increase in index traders’ positions and other correlated shifts in fundamentals: correlation does not imply causation . [sent-14, score-0.86]
9 Granger causality, as defined above, is a measure of correlation, or of partial correlation. [sent-17, score-0.104]
10 It’s just a correlation between things that are not happening at the same time. [sent-18, score-0.16]
11 The phrase “correlation does not imply causation” does not belong here at all! [sent-20, score-0.169]
12 ) I have nothing to say on the particulars, as I have no particular expertise in this area. [sent-22, score-0.081]
13 But in general, I’d prefer if researchers in this sort of problem were to try to estimate the effects of interest (for example, the amount of additional information present in some forecast) rather than setting up a series of hypothesis tests. [sent-23, score-0.194]
14 The trouble with tests is that when they reject, it often tells us nothing more than that the sample size is large. [sent-24, score-0.31]
15 And when they fail to reject, if often tells us nothing more than that the sample size is small. [sent-25, score-0.236]
16 In neither case is the test anything like a direct response to the substantive question of interest. [sent-26, score-0.094]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('granger', 0.477), ('commodities', 0.278), ('causality', 0.215), ('volatility', 0.214), ('contemporaneous', 0.169), ('traders', 0.169), ('returns', 0.167), ('correlation', 0.16), ('positions', 0.146), ('market', 0.136), ('masters', 0.136), ('causation', 0.124), ('series', 0.107), ('measure', 0.104), ('reject', 0.104), ('index', 0.101), ('forecast', 0.1), ('prices', 0.099), ('imply', 0.096), ('held', 0.094), ('test', 0.094), ('report', 0.089), ('tells', 0.087), ('interest', 0.087), ('futures', 0.084), ('iparraguirre', 0.084), ('oecd', 0.084), ('nothing', 0.081), ('jos', 0.08), ('muddy', 0.08), ('volatile', 0.08), ('particulars', 0.076), ('changes', 0.075), ('tests', 0.074), ('belong', 0.073), ('contracts', 0.073), ('incremental', 0.073), ('trader', 0.073), ('sir', 0.071), ('italics', 0.069), ('variable', 0.069), ('size', 0.068), ('signed', 0.068), ('fundamentals', 0.066), ('applicability', 0.065), ('shifts', 0.064), ('dubious', 0.063), ('determining', 0.062), ('bear', 0.06), ('structural', 0.058)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 212 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-17-Futures contracts, Granger causality, and my preference for estimation to testing
Introduction: José Iparraguirre writes: There’s a letter in the latest issue of The Economist (July 31st) signed by Sir Richard Branson (Virgin), Michael Masters (Masters Capital Management) and David Frenk (Better Markets) about an “>OECD report on speculation and the prices of commodities, which includes the following: “The report uses a Granger causality test to measure the relationship between the level of commodities futures contracts held by swap dealers, and the prices of those commodities. Granger tests, however, are of dubious applicability to extremely volatile variables like commodities prices.” The report says: Granger causality is a standard statistical technique for determining whether one time series is useful in forecasting another. It is important to bear in mind that the term causality is used in a statistical sense, and not in a philosophical one of structural causation. More precisely a variable A is said to Granger cause B if knowing the time paths of B and A toge
2 0.15603608 607 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-11-Rajiv Sethi on the interpretation of prediction market data
Introduction: Rajiv Sethi has some very interesting things to say : As the election season draws closer, considerable attention will be paid to prices in prediction markets such as Intrade. Contracts for potential presidential nominees are already being scrutinized for early signs of candidate strength. . . . This interpretation of prices as probabilities is common and will be repeated frequently over the coming months. But what could the “perceived likelihood according to the market” possibly mean? Prediction market prices contain valuable information about this distribution of beliefs, but there is no basis for the common presumption that the price at last trade represents the beliefs of a hypothetical average trader in any meaningful sense [emphasis added]. In fact, to make full use of market data to make inferences about the distribution of beliefs, one needs to look beyond the price at last trade and examine the entire order book. Sethi looks at some of the transaction data and con
3 0.12218503 950 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-10-“Causality is almost always in doubt”
Introduction: Dave Backus writes: We macroeconomists are thrilled with the Nobel prize for Sargent and Sims. But on causality: they spent more time showing how hard it was to identify causality than showing how to do it. And that’s a fair assessment of our field [economics]: causality is almost always in doubt. More here . If I were in a snarky mood, I’d say something like, Causality is always in doubt in economics . . . unless you’re talking about abortion and crime, in which case you can be absolutely certain. But I’m in a good mood right now so I won’t say that. Instead I’ll just remark that, as a statistician, I’m positively thrilled that somebody named “Sims” received a major award.
4 0.10974113 1802 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-14-Detecting predictability in complex ecosystems
Introduction: A couple people pointed me to a recent article , “Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems,” by fisheries researchers George Sugihara, Robert May, Hao Ye, Chih-hao Hsieh, Ethan Deyle, Michael Fogarty, and Stephan Munch. I don’t know anything about ecology research but I could imagine this method being useful in that field. I can’t see the approach doing much in political science, where I think their stated goal of “identifying causal networks” is typically irrelevant. That said, if you replace the word “causality” by “predictability” everywhere in the paper, it starts to make a lot more sense. As they write, they are working within “a framework that uses predictability as opposed to correlation to identify causation between time-series variables.” Setting causation aside, predictability is an important topic in itself. The search for patterns of predictability in complex structures may motivate causal hypotheses that can be studied more directly, using more traditional statis
5 0.10330378 792 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-08-The virtues of incoherence?
Introduction: Kent Osband writes: I just read your article The holes in my philosophy of Bayesian data analysis . I agree on the importance of what you flagged as “comparable incoherence in all other statistical philosophies”. The problem arises when a string of unexpected observations persuades that one’s original structural hypothesis (which might be viewed as a parameter describing the type of statistical relationship) was false. However, I would phrase this more positively. Your Bayesian prior actually cedes alternative structural hypotheses, albeit with tiny epsilon weights. Otherwise you would never change your mind. However, these epsilons are so difficult to measure, and small differences can have such a significant impact on speed of adjustment (as in the example in Chapter 7 of Pandora’s Risk), that effectively we all look incoherent. This is a prime example of rational turbulence. Rational turbulence can arise even without a structural break. Any time new evidence arrives that
6 0.092487596 112 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-27-Sampling rate of human-scaled time series
7 0.085188843 1605 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-04-Write This Book
8 0.084683143 1663 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-09-The effects of fiscal consolidation
9 0.083541609 1201 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-07-Inference = data + model
10 0.081258126 1342 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-24-The Used TV Price is Too Damn High
11 0.080441751 315 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-He doesn’t trust the fit . . . r=.999
12 0.077268898 257 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-04-Question about standard range for social science correlations
13 0.076129384 1778 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-27-My talk at the University of Michigan today 4pm
15 0.073973916 1656 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-05-Understanding regression models and regression coefficients
16 0.071346194 2277 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-The most-cited statistics papers ever
17 0.070304871 1624 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-15-New prize on causality in statstistics education
18 0.069591336 870 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-25-Why it doesn’t make sense in general to form confidence intervals by inverting hypothesis tests
19 0.068934523 1980 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Test scores and grades predict job performance (but maybe not at Google)
20 0.068407424 2090 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-05-How much do we trust a new claim that early childhood stimulation raised earnings by 42%?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.132), (1, 0.014), (2, 0.054), (3, -0.052), (4, 0.025), (5, -0.01), (6, -0.015), (7, 0.008), (8, 0.025), (9, 0.003), (10, -0.04), (11, 0.007), (12, 0.016), (13, -0.024), (14, -0.016), (15, -0.006), (16, 0.013), (17, -0.004), (18, 0.007), (19, -0.024), (20, 0.006), (21, 0.02), (22, 0.026), (23, 0.018), (24, 0.053), (25, 0.008), (26, 0.038), (27, -0.046), (28, 0.008), (29, 0.049), (30, 0.02), (31, 0.014), (32, 0.016), (33, 0.006), (34, 0.019), (35, -0.011), (36, 0.017), (37, -0.007), (38, 0.045), (39, 0.026), (40, -0.002), (41, 0.005), (42, 0.007), (43, 0.006), (44, -0.044), (45, 0.008), (46, 0.012), (47, -0.03), (48, 0.016), (49, -0.045)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96182227 212 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-17-Futures contracts, Granger causality, and my preference for estimation to testing
Introduction: José Iparraguirre writes: There’s a letter in the latest issue of The Economist (July 31st) signed by Sir Richard Branson (Virgin), Michael Masters (Masters Capital Management) and David Frenk (Better Markets) about an “>OECD report on speculation and the prices of commodities, which includes the following: “The report uses a Granger causality test to measure the relationship between the level of commodities futures contracts held by swap dealers, and the prices of those commodities. Granger tests, however, are of dubious applicability to extremely volatile variables like commodities prices.” The report says: Granger causality is a standard statistical technique for determining whether one time series is useful in forecasting another. It is important to bear in mind that the term causality is used in a statistical sense, and not in a philosophical one of structural causation. More precisely a variable A is said to Granger cause B if knowing the time paths of B and A toge
Introduction: Antonio Rinaldi writes: Here in Italy an “hype” topic is the “staffetta tra generazioni”, handover between generations: since unemployment rate in young people is very high, someone in the government is thinking to encourage older people to anticipate their retirement to make more jobs available for youngs. I am not an economist and I don’t want to discuss the economic plausibility of such a possible measure. However, some economists deny its success simply on the basis of a correlation and regression analysis. You can see the charts used as “evidence” here: http://www.lavoce.info/per-una-vera-staffetta-generazionale/ and here: http://noisefromamerika.org/articolo/occupazione-ricambio-intergenerazionale. The first chart shows that there is no correlation between activity rate in older people and unemployment rate in younger people. The second chart shows that there is a positive linear regression (even if the author doesn’t speak of a casual relationship) between activity rate in
3 0.67913544 1656 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-05-Understanding regression models and regression coefficients
Introduction: David Hoaglin writes: After seeing it cited, I just read your paper in Technometrics. The home radon levels provide an interesting and instructive example. I [Hoaglin] have a different take on the difficulty of interpreting the estimated coefficient of the county-level basement proportion (gamma-sub-2) on page 434. An important part of the difficulty involves “other things being equal.” That sounds like the widespread interpretation of a regression coefficient as telling how the dependent variable responds to change in that predictor when the other predictors are held constant. Unfortunately, as a general interpretation, that language is oversimplified; it doesn’t reflect how regression actually works. The appropriate general interpretation is that the coefficient tells how the dependent variable responds to change in that predictor after allowing for simultaneous change in the other predictors in the data at hand. Thus, in the county-level regression gamma-sub-2 summarize
4 0.67802626 1702 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-01-Don’t let your standard errors drive your research agenda
Introduction: Alexis Le Nestour writes: How do you test for no effect? I attended a seminar where the person assumed that a non significant difference between groups implied an absence of effect. In that case, the researcher needed to show that two groups were similar before being hit by a shock conditional on some observable variables. The assumption was that the two groups were similar and that the shock was random. What would be the good way to set up a test in that case? I know you’ve been through that before (http://andrewgelman.com/2009/02/not_statistical/) and there are interesting comments but I wanted to have your opinion on that. My reply: I think you have to get quantitative here. How similar is similar? Don’t let your standard errors drive your research agenda. Or, to put it another way, what would you do if you had all the data? If your sample size were 1 zillion, then everything would statistically distinguishable from everything else. And then you’d have to think about w
5 0.67754847 32 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-14-Causal inference in economics
Introduction: Aaron Edlin points me to this issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives that focuses on statistical methods for causal inference in economics. (Michael Bishop’s page provides some links .) To quickly summarize my reactions to Angrist and Pischke’s book: I pretty much agree with them that the potential-outcomes or natural-experiment approach is the most useful way to think about causality in economics and related fields. My main amendments to Angrist and Pischke would be to recognize that: 1. Modeling is important, especially modeling of interactions . It’s unfortunate to see a debate between experimentalists and modelers. Some experimenters (not Angrist and Pischke) make the mistake of avoiding models: Once they have their experimental data, they check their brains at the door and do nothing but simple differences, not realizing how much more can be learned. Conversely, some modelers are unduly dismissive of experiments and formal observational studies, forgetting t
6 0.67337906 1330 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-19-Cross-validation to check missing-data imputation
7 0.66682923 923 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-What is the normal range of values in a medical test?
9 0.66379201 607 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-11-Rajiv Sethi on the interpretation of prediction market data
10 0.66328615 1605 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-04-Write This Book
11 0.65807575 401 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-08-Silly old chi-square!
12 0.65770692 1663 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-09-The effects of fiscal consolidation
13 0.65497118 1178 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-21-How many data points do you really have?
14 0.65170622 791 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-08-Censoring on one end, “outliers” on the other, what can we do with the middle?
15 0.64882779 938 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-03-Comparing prediction errors
16 0.64753014 972 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-25-How do you interpret standard errors from a regression fit to the entire population?
17 0.64511722 553 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-03-is it possible to “overstratify” when assigning a treatment in a randomized control trial?
18 0.64437413 1801 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-13-Can you write a program to determine the causal order?
19 0.64360958 2142 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-21-Chasing the noise
20 0.63943684 799 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-13-Hypothesis testing with multiple imputations
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.028), (15, 0.029), (16, 0.048), (21, 0.049), (24, 0.135), (48, 0.211), (53, 0.064), (62, 0.012), (86, 0.026), (91, 0.012), (96, 0.021), (99, 0.247)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.95300215 332 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Proposed new section of the American Statistical Association on Imaging Sciences
Introduction: Martin Lindquist writes that he and others are trying to start a new ASA section on statistics in imaging. If you’re interested in being a signatory to its formation, please send him an email.
same-blog 2 0.92970604 212 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-17-Futures contracts, Granger causality, and my preference for estimation to testing
Introduction: José Iparraguirre writes: There’s a letter in the latest issue of The Economist (July 31st) signed by Sir Richard Branson (Virgin), Michael Masters (Masters Capital Management) and David Frenk (Better Markets) about an “>OECD report on speculation and the prices of commodities, which includes the following: “The report uses a Granger causality test to measure the relationship between the level of commodities futures contracts held by swap dealers, and the prices of those commodities. Granger tests, however, are of dubious applicability to extremely volatile variables like commodities prices.” The report says: Granger causality is a standard statistical technique for determining whether one time series is useful in forecasting another. It is important to bear in mind that the term causality is used in a statistical sense, and not in a philosophical one of structural causation. More precisely a variable A is said to Granger cause B if knowing the time paths of B and A toge
3 0.92285836 2363 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-07-“Does researching casual marijuana use cause brain abnormalities?”
Introduction: David Austin points me to a wonderfully-titled post by Lior Pachter criticizing a recent paper on the purported effects of cannabis use. Not the paper criticized here . Someone should send this all to David Brooks. I’ve heard he’s interested in the latest scientific findings, and I know he’s interested in marijuana.
4 0.91841614 1088 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-28-Argument in favor of Ddulites
Introduction: Mark Palko defines a Ddulite as follows: A preference for higher tech solutions even in cases where lower tech alternatives have greater and more appropriate functionality; a person of ddulite tendencies. Though Ddulites are the opposite of Luddites with respect to attitudes toward technology, they occupy more or less the same point with respect to functionality. As a sometime Luddite myself (no cell phone, tv, microwave oven, etc.), I should in fairness point out the logic in favor of being a Ddulite. Old technology is typically pretty stable; new technology is improving. It can make sense to switch early (before the new technology actually performs better than the old) to get the benefits of being familiar with the new technology once it does take off.
5 0.9094848 181 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-MCMC in Python
Introduction: John Salvatier forwards a note from Anand Patil that a paper on PyMC has appeared in the Journal of Statistical Software, We’ll have to check this out.
7 0.88637507 841 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-06-Twitteo killed the bloggio star . . . Not!
8 0.87279046 681 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-26-Worst statistical graphic I have seen this year
9 0.86757523 1496 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-14-Sides and Vavreck on the 2012 election
10 0.86527979 1234 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-28-The Supreme Court’s Many Median Justices
11 0.85061395 464 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-12-Finite-population standard deviation in a hierarchical model
13 0.84697157 2147 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Measuring Beauty
14 0.83943903 823 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-26-Including interactions or not
15 0.83426267 605 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-09-Does it feel like cheating when I do this? Variation in ethical standards and expectations
16 0.83316261 1518 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-02-Fighting a losing battle
17 0.83198476 2126 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-07-If I could’ve done it all over again
18 0.82455337 202 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-Job openings in multilevel modeling in Bristol, England
19 0.81179661 1910 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-22-Struggles over the criticism of the “cannabis users and IQ change” paper
20 0.81005138 2118 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-30-???