The AstroStat Slog » arXiv Weaving together Astronomy+Statistics+Computer Science+Engineering+Intrumentation, far beyond the growing borders Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:05:33 +0000 en-US hourly 1 A short note on Probability for astronomers Mon, 28 Dec 2009 03:13:02 +0000 hlee I often feel irksome whenever I see a function being normalized over a feasible parameter space and it being used as a probability density function (pdf) for further statistical inference. In order to be a suitable pdf, normalization has to be done over a measurable space not over a feasible space. Such practice often yields biased best fits (biased estimators) and improper error bars. On the other hand, validating a measurable space under physics seems complicated. To be precise, we often lost in translation.

When I was teaching statistics, despite undergraduate courses, there were both undergraduate and graduate students of various fields except astrophysics majors. I wondered why they were not encouraged to take some basic statistics whereas they were encouraged to take some computer science courses. As there are many astronomers good at programming and designing tools, I’m sure that recommending students to take statistics courses will renovate astronomical data analysis procedures (beyond Bevington’s book) and hind theories (statistics and mathematics per se, not physics laws).

Here’s an interesting lecture for developing a curriculum for the new era in computer science and why the basic probability theory and statistics is important to raise versatile computer scientists. It could be a bit out dated now because I saw it several months ago.

About a little more than the half way through the lecture, he emphasizes that probability course partaking the computer science curriculum. I wonder any astronomy professor has similar arguments and stresses for any needs of basic probability theories to be learned among young future astrophysicists in order to prevent many statistics misuses appearing in astronomical literature. Particularly confusions between fitting (estimating) and inference (both model assessment and uncertainty quantification) are frequently observed in literature where authors claim their superior statistics and statistical data analysis. I personally sometimes attribute this confusion to the lack of distinction between what is random and what is deterministic, or strong believe in their observed and processed data absent from errors and probabilistic nature.

Many introductory books introduce very interesting problems many of which have some historical origins to introduce probability theories (many anecdotes). One can check out the very basics, probability axioms, and measurable function from wikipedia. With examples, probability is high school or lower level math that you already know but with jargon you’ll like to recite lexicons many times so that you are get used to foundations, basics, and their theories.

We often mention measurable to discuss random variables, uncertainties, and distributions without verbosity. “Assume measurable space … ” saves multiple paragraphs in an article and changes the structure of writing. This short adjective implies so many assumptions depending on statistical models and equations that you are using for best fits and error bars.

Consider a LF, that is truncated due to observational limits. The common practice I saw is drawing a histogram in a way that the adaptive binning makes the overall shape reflecting a partial bell shape curve. Thanks to its smoothed look, scientists impose a gaussian curve to partially observed data and find parameter estimates that determine the shape of this gaussian curve. There is no imputation step to fake unobserved points to comprise the full probability space. The parameter space of gaussian curves frequently does not coincide with the physically feasible space; however, such discrepancy is rarely discussed in astronomical literature and subsequent biased results look like a taboo.

Although astronomers emphasize the importance of uncertainties, factorization nor stratification of uncertainties has never been clear (model uncertainty, systematic uncertainty or bias, statistical uncertainties or variance). Hierarchical relationships or correlations among these different uncertainties are never addressed in a full measure. Basics of probability theory and the understanding of random variables would help to characterize uncertainties both in mathematical sense and astrophysical sense. This knowledge also assist appropriate quantification of these characterized uncertainties.

Statistical models are rather simple compared to models of astrophysics. However, statistics is the science of understanding uncertainties and randomness and therefore, some strategies of transcribing from complicated astrophysical models into statistical models, in order to reflect the probabilistic nature of observed (or parameters, for Bayesian modeling), are necessary. Both raw or processed data manifest the behavior of random variables. Their underlying processes determine not only physics models but also statistical models written in terms of random variables and the link functions connecting physics and uncertainties. To my best understanding, bridging and inventing statistical models for astrophysics researches seem tough due to the lack of awareness of basics of probability theory.

Once I had a chance to observe a Decadal survey meeting, which covered so diverse areas in astronomy. They discussed new projects, advancing current projects, career developments, and a little bit about educating professional astronomers apart from public reach (which often receives more importance than university curriculum. I also believe that wide spread public awareness of astronomy is very important). What I missed while I observing the meeting is that interdisciplinary knowledge transferring efforts to broaden the field of astronomy and astrophysics nor curriculum design ideas. Because of its long history, I thought astronomy is a science of everything. Marching a path for a long time made astronomy more or less the most isolated and exclusive science.

Perhaps asking astronomy majors taking multiple statistics courses is too burdensome; therefore being taught by faculty who are specialized in (statistical) data analysis organizes a data analysis course and incorporates several hours of basic probability is more realistic and what I anticipate. With a few hours of bringing fundamental notions in random variables and probability, the claims of “statistical rigorous methods and powerful results” will become more appropriate. Currently, statistics is science but in astronomy literature, it looks more or less like an adjective that modify methods and results like “powerful”, “superior”, “excellent”, “better”, “useful,” and so on. Basics of probability is easily incorporated into introduction of algorithms in designing experiments and optimization methods, which are currently used in a brute force fashion[1].

Occasionally, I see gems from arxiv written by astronomers. Their expertise in astronomy and their interest in statistics has produced intriguing accounts for statistically rigorous data analysis and inference procedures. Their papers includes explanation of fundamentals of statistics and probability more appropriate to astronomers than statistics textbooks for scientists and engineers of different fields. I wish more astronomers join this venture knowing basics and diversities of statistics to rectify many unconscious misuses of statistics while they argue that their choice of statistics is the most powerful one thanks to plausible results.

  1. What I mean by a brute force fashion is that trying all methods listed in the software manual, and then later, stating that the method A gave most plausible values that matches with data in a scatter plot
]]> 0
astronomy bibliography Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:13:39 +0000 hlee Because of blogging and projects I worked on, I happened to collect quite many publications in Astronomy. The collection is biased toward my personal interests. However, these authors discussed statistics in a wide range. So, I felt my astronomical bibliography can be useful to slog audience. Some areas could match your interests. Or your own name can be found.

  • MNRAS, 362, 826-832 (2005) Cayon, Jin, Treaster, Higher Criticism statistic: detecting and identifying non-Gaussianityin the WMAP first year data.(found recently for a [MADS] post about HC)
  • MNRAS, 347, 1241-1254 (2004) Sochting, Clowes, Campusano, tessellation

Xray, LF, PowerLaw estimation, Poisson, Pareto, truncated, heavy tail dist’n

  • ApJ, 310, 334-342 (1986), Schmitt, Maccacaro, estimating alpha of pareto, poisson noise
  • ApJ, 293, 178-191, (1985), Schmitt, upper bounds
  • ApJ, 374, 344-355, (1991), Kraft, Burrow, Nousek confidence limits
  • ApJ, 228, 939-947 (1979), Cash, MLE
  • ApJ, 518,380-393 (1999) Mighell, parameter estimation, poisson data, chi^2
  • MNRAS, 225, 155-170 (1987), Fasano, Franceschini, multidim’l, Kolmogorov-Smirnov
  • A&A, 188, 258-264 (1987) Gosset, 3D Kolmogorov Smirnov

Calibration uncertainty related

  • MNRAS, 335, 1193-1200 (2002) Bridle, Crittened, et al. Analytic marginalization over CMB calibration and beam uncertainty
  • ApJ, 693, 822-829 (2009) Humphrey, Liu, Buote, chi^2 and possionian data: …
  • ApJ, 690, 128-143 (2009) Grimm, McDowell, et al. Chandra ACIS
  • ApJ, 471, 673-682 (1996) Churazov, Gilfanov, et al. (low counts)
  • ApJ, 562, 575-582 (2001) Davis, pileup, CCD
  • ApJ, 539, 172-186 (2000) Buote, averaging arfs, chi^2,
  • A&A, 162, 340-348 (1986) Simpson, Mayer-Hasselwander, Bootstrap sampling: applications in gamma-ray astronomy (simple linear regression, parametric bootstrap)
  • PASJ (Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan), 59, S113-132 (2007), Ishisaki et al (mentions ARF uncertainty, sec. 4)
  • ApSS, 231, 157-160 (1995) Halon, Bennet, et al. Spectral characaterisation of GRBs (used XSPEC)
  • [0805.2207] (ApJ) Vikhlinin, et al. (uncertainty, bias, stacking, section 8, calibration uncertainties, astronomical uncertainties, modeling uncertainties, be aware that lexicon implications are quite different from those of statistics)
  • ApJ, 168, 151, 393- (1968), Schmidt, space dist’n and LFs of quisi-stellar radio sources
  • More directly related references to Chandra calibration uncertainty will be available via a paper that my group is preparing.

Isochrone related (inference on parameters of stellar evolution models)

  1. A&A, astro-ph/0504483 (2006) Cervino, Luridiana, Cervino-Luridiana, Confidence limits of evolutionary synthesis models.
  2. 0510411/astro-ph/Cervino, Luridiana, revisiting and assessing uncertainties in stellar populations synthesis models (rectify or render modeling processes)
  3. MNRAS, 351,487-504 (2004) F. Pont, L. Eyer, Isochrone ages for field dwarfs: method and application to the age-metallicity relation.
  4. MRNAS, 316, 605-612 (2000) Hernandez, Valls-Gabaud, Gilmore, The recent star formation history of the Hipparcos solar neightbourhood
  5. A&A, 366, 538-546 (2001) T. Lejeune, D. Schaerer, Database of Geneva Stellar evolution tracks and isochrones for …
  6. MNRAS, 304, 705-719 (1999) Hernandez, Valls-Gabaud, Gilmore, Deriving star formation histories: inverting Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams through a variational calculus maximum likelihood method
  7. MNRAS, 375, 1220-1240 (2007), Mayen, Naylor, et al, Empirical isochrones and relative ages for young stars, and the radiative-convective gap. (DATA)
  8. MNRAS, 373, 1251-1263 (2006) Naylor, Jeffries, a maximum likelihood method for fitting CM diagrams
  9. 0702422/astro-ph/Cervino, Luridiana,
  10. ApJ, 645,1436-1447 (2006) von Hippel, et al.
  11. ApJ, 345, 245-256 (1989), Cardelli, Clayton, Mathia,
  12. 0708.1964, McWilliam, Globuar cluster abundance … 47 Tuc
  13. A&A, 331, 81-120 (1998), Perryman, Brown, et al (Hyades: dist. struc. dynamics, and age)
  14. AJ, 103, 460- (1992), Hodder, Nemec, Richer, Fahlman (M71)
  15. MNRAS, 347, 101-118 (2004) Sandquist, CMD of M67
  16. A&ASS, 141, 371-383 (2000) Girardi, Bressan, Bertelli, Chiosi, Evolution tracks and isochrones
  17. A&A, 414, 163-174(2004) Salaris, Weiss, Percival, age of the oldest open cluster (can cross compare)
  18. MNRAS, 332, 91-108 (2002) Dolphin, numerical methods of star formation history measurement and applications to seven dwarf spheroidals
  19. Ap&SS (arxiv:0710.4003), Demarque, Guenther, Li, et al (YREC: the Yale Rotating Stellar Evolution Code)
  20. AJ, 137, 3668-3684 (2009) Cignono, Sabbi, Nota, et al. (Star Formation History in the SMC, NGC602)
  21. ApJ (arxiv:0706.1202) Gieles, Lamers, Zwart (age distribution of star clusters in the SMC)
  22. AJ, 135:1361-1383 (2008) de Jong, Rix, Martin, et al (Numerical CMD analysis of SDSS data and applications)
  23. [astro-ph:0812.1323] Muench, Getman, et al. (Star Formation in the Orion Nebula I; Stellar Content)
  24. [astro-ph:0606170] Blanton, Roweis (K-corrections and filter transformations in the UV, optical, and NIR) (check out NMF in the appendix)
  25. ApJ (? arxiv: 0806.2945) Martin, de Jong, Rix (ML analysis & MW satellites)
  26. and more…

spatial stat/GRB

  • A&A, 354, 1-6 (2000) Meszaros, Bagoly, Vavrek
  • MNRAS, 241, 109-117 (1989), Scott, Tout, Nearest neightbor
  • A&A, 162, 340-348 (1986) Simpson, Mayer-Hasselwander, Bootstrap sampling, app. in GR
  • MNRAS, 210, 19-23,( 1984) Barrow, Bhavsar, Sonoda, Bootstrap, galaxy cluster
  • A&A, 362, 851-864 (2000) La Barbera, Busarello, Capaccioli (measurement errors, intrinsic scatter, fundamental plane)
  • Bull. Astro. Soc. India (2002) 30,445-448, Shanthi, Bhat, Reclassification of GRBs ..
  • MNRAS, 301,419-434 (1998) Pichon, Thiebaut, Nonparametric reconstruction of dist’n fns from observed galactic discs.
  • A&A, 403, 443-448 (2003) Meszaros, Stocek, anisotropy kn the angular distribution of long GRBs?
  • ApJ, 538, 165-180 (2000), Hakkila, Haglin, et al. GRB class properties
  • MNRAS, 343, 255-258 (2003), Magliocchetti, Ghirlanda, Celotti, evidence for anisotropy
  • ApJ, 513, 543-548 (1999) Kerscher, et al. (Martinez), J function.
  • A&A, 366, 376-386 (2001) Valdarnini
  • MNRAS, 328, 283-290 (2001), Balastegui, Ruiz-Lapuente, Canal, reclassification of grbs
  • ApJ, 566, 202-209 (2002) Rajaniemi, Mahonen, SOM, classifying GRBs

giving up sorting

  • A&SS, 271, 213-226 (2000), Takeuchi, Application of the information criterion to the estimation of galaxy luminosity fuction
  • ApJ, 438, 322-340 (1995) Wheaton, Dunklee, et al (multiparameter linear LS fitting to poisson data) Vague to me, could have more statistical rigor.
  • ApJ, 483, 3540-349 (1997) Kolaczyk, Nonparametric estimation of GRB intesities using Haar Wavelets. (It talked IMSE)
  • MNRAS, 377, 120-132 (2007) Shekdy, Decin, et al (Estimating stellar parameters from spectra using a hierarchical Bayesian approach)
  • ApJSS, 113, 89-104 (1997) Newberg, Yanny (3D parameterization of the stellar locus with application to QSO color selection) *STELLAR LOCUS/LOCI*
  • A&A, 478, 971-980 (2008) Huertas-Company, Rouan, et al (Robust morphological classification, SVM)
  • *ApJ, 600, 681-694 (2004) Baldry, Glazebrook, et al (Quantifying the Binodal CM distribution of Galaxies)
  • A&A, 501, 813-820 (2009) Knop, Hauschildt, Baron
  • ApJSS, 181,1-52 (2009) Swesty, Myra
  • ApJ, 303, 336-346 (1986) Gehrels, Confidence limits (can be tried with more robust approaches)
  • ApJ, 595, 59-70 (2003) Budavari, Connolly, Szalay et al (Angular Clustering with Photometric Redshifts in the SDSS: Bimodality in the clustering Properties of Galaxies)
  • AJ, 131, 790-805 (2006) Lu, Zhuou, Wang et al (*EL-ICA*)
  • MNRAS, 372, 615-629 (2006) Stivoli, et al (ICA, fastICA)
  • MNRAS, 376, 739-759
  • ApJ, 162, 405-410 (1970) Crawford, Jauncey, Murdoch MLE of Powerlaw alpha
  • ApJ, 681, 679-691 (2005) Helsdon, Ponman, Mulchaey
  • ApJ, 161, 271-303 (2005) Grimm, McDowell, Zezas, Kim, Fabbiano (XLF)
  • ApJ, 481, 644-659 (1997) Nichol, Holden, Romer, Ulmer, Burke, Collins (XLF)
  • ApJ, 269, 35-41 (1983) Marshall, Avni, Tananbaum, Zamorani (Likelihood, Linden-Bell, )
  • ApJ, 662, 224-235 (2007) Kocevski, Ebeling, Mullis, Tully
  • ApJ, 671, 1471-1496 (2007) Barkhouse, Yee, Lopez-Cruz (Schechter function, LF)
  • NMRAS, 301, 881-914 (1998) Ebeling, Edge, et al (log N- log S dist)
  • MNRAS, 281, 799-824 (1996) Ebeling, Voges, et al. (ROSAT..)
  • MNRAS, 389, 1190-1208 (2008) Bottino, Banday, Maino (FASTICA, WMAP)
  • MNRAS, 376, 739-758 (2007) Aumont, Macias-Perez (PolEMICA, SMICA, ICA, CMB, blind source separation)
  • MNRAS, 374, 1207-1215 (2007) Maino, Donzelli, Banday et al (CMB, FastICA)
  • MNRAS, 354, 55-70 (2004) Baccigalupi et al (CMB)
  • MNRAS, 344, 544-552 (2003) Maino, Banday, et al (COBE, fastICA)
  • MNRAS, 334, 53-68 (2002) Maino, Farusi, et al (fastICA)
  • MNRAS, 318, 769-780 (2000) Baccigalupi, Bedini, et al (Neural Net, CMB)
  • A&A, 422, 113-1121 (2004) Zhang, Zhao (SVM, supervised learning)
  • MNRAS, 356, 872-882 (2005) Ascasibar, Binney (*Density Estiimation*, has Tessellation, binary tree)
  • MNRAS, 373, 1293-1307 (2006) Sharma, Steinmetz (multi dim density estimation)
  • MNRAS, 368, 497-510 (2006) Diehl, Statler (adaptive binning, Voronoi tessellations)
  • MNRAS, 372, 1104-1116 (2006) Percival, Brown (Likelihood techniques, CMB)
  • ApJSS, 176, 276-292 (2008) van Belle et al (Palomar)
  • A&A, 368,776-786 (2001) Ramella, Boschin, et al (galaxy clusters, Voronoi Tessellations)
  • MNRAS, 331, 569-577 (2002) Sochting, Clowes, Campusano (galaxy cluster, MST)
  • MNRAS, 347, 1241-1254 (2004) Sochting, Clowes, Campusano (MLE, Voronoi Tessellations)
  • ApJ, 477, 79-92 (1997) Scharf, Jones, Ebeling, et al (ROAST, Voronoi Tessellations, VTP, source detection, thresholding needs more statistical rigor
  • clustering in massive data sets, fionn murtagh, chemical data analysis in the large

  • Advanced data mining tools for exploring large astronomical data, by Longo, et al. SPIE Vol 4477 (2001)
  • Massive Datasets in Astronomy by Brunner, Djorgovski, Prince, Szalay, astro-ph/010648
  • Mining Massive Data Streams by Hulten, Domingos, Spencer, J. Mach Learning Research 1 (2005)
  • Adaptive Piecewise-constant Modeling of Signals in Multidimensional Spaces, Scargle, Jackson, Norris, Phystat2003
  • Error analysis of the photometric redshift technique, MNRAS, 330, 889-894 (2002)
  • Introduction to Statistical Issues in Paraticle PHysics, R. Barlow, Phystat2003
  • Detectin of non-random patterns in cosmological gravitational clustering
  • Valdarnini A\&A 366 376-386
  • Population analysis of faint galaxies with mixture modeling, Titus, Spillar, Johnson, AJ, Vol. 114(3). 1997
  • Automated Classification of Rosat sources using heteorgeneous multiwavelength
    source catalog by McGlynn et al ApJ 616:1284-1300, 2004
  • AJ, 122, 3492-3505 (2001) Miller, Genovese, Nichol, Wasserman, et al. (FDR in astrophysical data analysis)
  • MNRAS, 374, 867-876 (2007) Priddey et al. (survival analysis and bayesian)
  • A&A, 310, 508-518 (1996) Carbillet, Ricort, Aime, Perrier
  • ApJ, 659, 29-51 (2007) Kim, Wilkes, Kim et al (chandra)
  • ApJSS, 169, 401-429 (2007) Kim, Kim, Wilkes, et al (chandra)
  • MNRAS, 369, 677-696 (2006) Protopapas et al. Finding outlier light curves in catalogues of periodic variables stars.
  • MNRAS, 360, 447-491 (2005) Diego, Protopapas, Sandvik, Tegmark, nonparametric inversion of strong lensing system
  • MNRAS, 375, 958-970 (2007) Diego, Tegmark, Protopapas, Sandvik,
  • MNRAS, 362, 1247-1258 (2005) Diego, Sandvik, Protopapas, Tegmark, Benitez, Broadhurst
  • ApJ, 134, 1963-1993
  • MNRAS, 362, 460-468, Protopapas, Jimenez, Alcock, Fast idenitification of transits from light-curves
  • MNRAS,378, 716-722 (2007) Lane, Gray, et al.

  • ApJSS, 172, 353-367 (2007) Brusa, et al (Likelihood ratio technique, Fisher will not be happy)
  • ApJSS, 172,406-433 (2007) Scarlata et al.
  • ApJSS, 172,494-510 (2007) Scarlata et al.
  • ApJSS, 172,320-328 (2007) Kartaltepe et al.
  • ApJSS, 172, 284-295 (2007) Capak et al.
  • ApJSS, 172, 182-195 (2007) Finoguenov et al
  • ApJSS, 182, 341-352 (2007) Cappelluti et al.
  • MNRAS,259, 413-420 (1992) Sutherland, Sauders, LRT for source identification
  • A&A, 398, 901-918 (2003) Ciliegi, et al.
  • AJ, 123, 1807-1825 (2002) Goto et al. (SDSS, cluster detection)
  • AJ, 135, 1810-1824 (2008) Fridmann (robustness, influence function)
  • ApJ, 579, 48-75 (2002) Scranton, Johnston, et al (Analysis of systematic effects and stat uncertainties in … SDSS)
  • A&A, 330, 447-452 (1998) Molinari, Smareglia (Neural Net, galaxy classification, LF of E/SO)
  • ApJ, 556, 937-943 (2001) Gortiglioni, Mahonen, Hakala, Frantti (SOM, star-galaxy discrimination)
  • A&A, 482, 483-498 (2008) Torniainen, Tornikoski, Turunen, et al (SOM)
  • ApJ, 566, 202-209 (2002) Rajaniemi, Mahonen (GRB, SOM)
  • ApJSS, 111,357-367 (1997) Naim, Ratnatunga, Griffiths (Galaxy morphology, SOM)
  • MNRAS, 334, 53-68 (2002) Maino, Farusi, et al (FastICA, CMB, Plank)
  • MNRAS, 340, 1269-1278 (2003) Ebeling, improved approx. of Poissonian errors for high CLs.
  • ApJ, 461, 396-407 (1996) Mattox et al (Likelihood, Egret)
  • ApJ, 504, 405-418 (1998) Scargle (Bayesian Blocks)
  • AJ, 124, 147-157 (2002) Whitmore, Schweizer, Kundu, Miller (LF, GC NGC 3610) K-S test
  • MNRAS,155, 95-118 (1971) *Lynden-Bell*
  • ApJ, 116, 144- (1952) *Neyman, Scott*
  • ApJ, 117, 92- (1953) *Neyman, Scott*
  • ApJ, 183, 1-13 (1973) Murdoch, Crawford
  • AJ, 115, 1206-1211 (1998) Saha
  • ApJ, 645, 1436-1447 (2006) von Hippel, Jefferys, Scott, et al (CMD, Bayesian)
  • A&A, 415, 571-576 (2004) Bonatto, Bica, Girardi (isochrones, WEBDA, source of some clusters for isochrone fitting, inference problem)
  • MNRAS, 317, 831-842 (2000) *Hernandez*, Gilmore, Valls-Gabaud, Nonparametric star formation histories for four dwarf spheroidal galaxies of the local group
  • A&A, 436, 127-143 (2005) Jorgensen, Lindegren, Determination of Stellar ages from isochrones: &Beysian est. vs. isochrone fitting
  • A&A, 386, 187-203 (2002) Meibom, Andersen, Nordstrom, Stellar evolution, open clusters
  • ApJ, 462, 672-683 (1996) Tolstoy, Saha, CMD, Bayesian Inference
  • A&A, 472, 293-298 (2007) Ramos, Extreme value theory, solar cycle
  • ApJ, 427, 438-445 (1994) Zepka, Cordes, Wasserman
  • ApJ, 470,706-714 (1996) Akritas, Bershady, Linear regression, measurement errors
  • ApJ, 646, 1445-1451 (2006) Ramos, MDL and model selection
  • ApJ, 438, 269-287 (1995) Baliunas, Donahue, et al Chromospheric variations in MS stars II
  • ApJ, 270, 119-122 (1983) Morrison, McCammon
  • ApJ, 199, 299-306 (1975) Kellogg, Baldwin, Koch
  • ApJ, 508, 314-327 (1998) Mukherjee, Feigelson, Babu, Murtagh, Fraley, Raftery (Three types of GRBs)
  • A&ASS,116, 395-402 (1996) Faundez-Aban, et al, Classiciation of Planetary Nebule, Neural Network, Supervised learning
  • AJ, 79, 745- (1974) Lucy, EM algorithm in astronomy
  • ApJ, 610,1213-1227 (2004) Esch, Connors, et. al.
  • ApJ, 495, 100-114 (1998) Jones, Scharf, Ebeling, etal (logN-logS)
  • MNRAS, 281, 799-829 (1996) Ebeling, Voges, et al. (Voronoi Tessellation)
  • MNRAS, 370, 141-150 (2006) Recio-Blanco, Bijaoui, de Laverny (MATISSE algorithm)
  • ApJ, 661, 135-148 (2007), Zezas, et al *XLF*
  • MNRAS, 338, 891-902 (2003) Smith, Lutz-Kelker bias
  • ApJSS, 129, 1-31 (2000) Takeuchi,Yoshikawa, Ishii (stat. methods of estimating LF)
  • ApJ, 560, 606-616 (2001) *Loh, Quashnock, Stein*
  • MNRAS, 324, 51-56 (2001) Rauzy, assessing the completeness
  • A&ASS,127, 335-352 (1998) Fadda, Slezak, Bijaoui, Density estimation with non-parametric methods
  • ApJ, 412, 64-71 (1993) Landy, Szalay, bias and variance of angular correlation functions
  • A&A, 423-443 (2004) Demianski, Doroshkevich, stat. characterics of large scale structure (it didn’t look statistical to me)
  • MNRAS, 296, 253-272 (1998) Colombi, Szapudi, Szalay, effects of sampling on statistics of large-scale structure
  • AJ, 104, 1472- (1992) Secker, Stat. Investigation into the shape of the GCLF
  • MNRAS, 351, L49-L53 (2004), *Liddle* How many cosmological parameters?
  • A&A, 431, 511-516 (2005) Pfenniger, Revaz, Tully-Fisher
  • ApJ, 524, L79-L82 (1999) Bromley, Tegmark, Is the CMB really non-gaussian?
  • MNRAS, 321, 44-56 (2001) Koen, Hipparcos, time series
  • MNRAS, 340, 1190-1198 (2003) Bissantz, Munk, Scholz, Parametric versus nonparametric modelling? stat. evidence based on p-value curves
  • MNRAS, 336, 131-138 (2002) Bissantz, Munk, graphical selection method post model selection problem to me
  • AJ, 70(3), 193-, (1965) Sun’s Motion and Sunspots
  • ApJ, 480, 22-35 (1997) Tegmark, Taylor, Heavens, CMB, SVD, large data set
  • Physical Review D, 55(10), 5895- (1997) Tegmark, how to measure CMB power spectra w/o losin g information
  • ApJ, 480, L87-L90 (1997) Tegmark, … w/o losing information
  • ApJ, 499, 555-576 (1998) Tegmark, Hailton, Strauss, Vogeley, Szalay, Galaxy power spectrum
  • Physical Review D, 69, 103501-1 (2004), Tegmark et al.
  • J. Math. Phys. 41(6), 3801- (2000), Schroer, Quantum field theory
  • ApJ, 518, L69-72 (1999), Tegmark, Bromley, Obsearvational Evidence for Stochastic Biasing
  • ApJ, 519, 513-517 (1999), Tegmark, Comparing and combining CMB data sets
  • MNRAS, 312, 285-294 (2000), Hamilton, Tegmark, Decorrelating the power spectrum of galaxies
  • ApJ, 544, 30-42 (2000) Tegmark, Zaldarriaga, 10 parameter CMB
  • ApJ, 499, 526-532 (1998) Tegmark, Rees, CMB fluctuation?
  • MNRAS, 341, 1199-1204 (2003) Yamamoto, SDSS, QSO, spatial power spectrum
  • A&A, 431, 511-516 (2005) Pfenniger, Revaz, Tully-Fisher
  • AJ, 133, 734-754 (2007) Blanton, Roweis, K-corrections and Filter transformations (NMF)
  • ApJ, 483, 350-369 (1997) Damiani, Maggio, et al, wavelet, detection
  • ApJ, 483, 370-389 (199), Damiani, et al, wavelet, detection, application
  • ApJSS, 138, 185-218 (2002) Freeman, et al, wavdetect
  • A&A, 246, 291-300 (1991) Zaninetti, Dynamical Voronoi Tessellation
  • AJ, 115, 2598-2615 (1998) Barnbaum, Bradley (radio, filter)
  • AJ, 130, 2424-2433 (2005) Mitchell, Robertson, Sault Alternative Adaptive Filter structures (radio astronomy)
  • AJ, 130, 2916-2927 (2006) Poulsen, Jeffs, Warnick (cancellation, filter, LMS)
  • ApJ, 688, L49-52 (2008) Kitiashvili, Kosovichev (data assimilation, solar cycles)
  • MNRAS, 334, 533-541 (2002) Herranz, et al. (adaptive filter)
  • AJ, 120, 2163-2173 (2000) Stoica, Larsson, Li (adaptive filter bank)
  • ApJ, 399, 345-351 (1992) *Efron, Petrosian, *
  • A&ASS, 127, 335-352 (1998) Fadda, Slezak, Bijaoui (density estimation, nonparametric, penalized likelihood)
  • MNRAS, 359, 993-1006 (2005) Lopez-Caniego, et al. (Neyman-Pearson detector, filter design)
  • A&A … salaris, Cassisi, CC diagram, GC, systematic uncertainties using the (V-K)-(V-I)
  • ApJSS, 172:219-238 (2007) Leauthaud, Massey, et al. Weak grav. lensing with COSMOS
  • ApJSS, 172:254-269 (2007) Guzzo, Casata, et al. COSMOS, large scale structure, morphology
  • ApJSS, 172:150-171 (2007) Scoville, et al. COSMOS, galaxy evolution
  • A&A, 343, 496-506 (1999) Plets, Vynckier, MS, post MS, minium volume ellipsoid
  • MRNAS, 318, 92-100 (2000) Lucy, L.B. hypothesis testing, chi^2
  • MNRAS, 380, 551-570 (2007) Platen, van de Weygaert, Jones, WVF void detection
  • ApJ, 293, 192-206 (1985) Feigelson, Nelson, stat. method. with upper limits
  • AJ, 123, 2945-2975 (2002) Richards, Fan, Newberg et al, SDSS, quasar,
  • ApJSS, 155, 257-269 (2004) Richards, Nichol, Gray et al, SDSS, quasar,
  • ApJ, 545, 6-25 (2000) Beisbart, kerscher, luminosity, morpholgy-dep. clustering, galaxy (marked point process, random field, see Stoyan, Kendall, and Mecke)
  • AJ, 122, 1238-1250 (2001) Shimasaku, et al. SDSS, statistical properties, photometric system
  • AJ, 122, 1861-1874 (2001) Strateva, et al. SDSS, color separation
  • ApJSS, 155:243-256 (2004), Weinstein, Richards, Scheider, et al. SDSS, photometric redshifts
  • Geophy. Res. Let., 33, L07201 (2006) Colwell, Esposito, Sremcevic (self-gravity wakes in Saturn’s A ring measured by stellar occultations from Cassini)
  • AJ, 133, 2624-2629 (2007) Hedman et al (about wake structure in Saturn’s A ring) I was fascinated when I first heard about two shephard moon effect that forms Saturn’s ring and later possible meteorites and moons
  • ApJ, 622:759-771(2005), Gorski, Hivon, Banday, et al (HEALPIX)

Copula application (I wanted put this under [MADS])

  • MNRAS, 393, 1370-1976 (2009) Koen (CIs for the correlation between the GRB peak energy and the associated SN peak brightness, Gaussian copula)

Non astronomy not in statistics:

  • Clustering Properties of Hierarchical Self-Organizing Maps, Lampinen and Oja
    J. Math. Imaging and VIsion, vol. 3, pp. 261-272, 1992
  • Quite many machine learning publications … too long to type them out!
]]> 0
From Terence’s stuff: You want proof? Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:27:30 +0000 hlee Please, IMS Bulletin, v.38 (10) check p.11 of this pdf file for the whole article.

It is widely believed that under some fairly general conditions, MLEs are consistent, asymptotically normal, and efficient. Stephen Stigler has elegantly documented some of Fisher’s troubles when he wanted a proof. You want proof? Of course you can pile on assumptions so that the proof is easy. If checking your assumptions in any particular case is harder than checking the conclusion in that case, you will have joined a great tradition.
I used to think that efficiency was a thing for the theorists (I can live with inefficiency), that normality was a thing of the past (we can simulate), but that—in spite of Ralph Waldo Emerson—consistency is a thing we should demand of any statistical procedure. Not any more. These days we can simulate in and around the conditions of our data, and learn whether a novel procedure behaves as it should in that context. If it does, we might just believe the results of its application to our data. Other people’s data? That’s their simulation, their part of the parameter space, their problem. Maybe some theorist will take up the challenge, and study the procedure, and produce something useful. But if we’re still waiting for that with MLEs in general (canonical exponential families are in good shape), I wouldn’t hold my breath for this novel procedure. By the time a few people have tried the new procedure, each time checking its suitability by simulation in their context, we will have built up a proof by simulation. Shocking? Of course.
Some time into my career as a statistician, I noticed that I don’t check the conditions of a theorem before I use some model or method with a set of data. I think in statistics we need derivations, not proofs. That is, lines of reasoning from some assumptions to a formula, or a procedure, which may or may not have certain properties in a given context, but which, all going well, might provide some insight. The evidence that this might be the case can be mathematical, not necessarily with epsilon-delta rigour, simulation, or just verbal. Call this “a statistician’s proof ”. This is what I do these days. Should I be kicked out of the IMS?

After reading many astronomy literature, I develop a notion that astronomers like to use the maximum likelihood as a robust alternative to the chi-square minimization for fitting astrophysical models with parameters. I’m not sure it is truly robust because not many astronomy paper list assumptions and conditions for their MLEs.

Often I got confused with their target parameters. They are not parameters in statistical models. They are not necessarily satisfy the properties of probability theory. I often fail to find statistical properties of these parameters for the estimation. It is rare checking statistical modeling procedures with assumptions described by Prof. Speed. Even derivation is a bit short to be called “rigorous statistical analysis.” (At least I wish to see a sentence that “It is trivial to derive the estimator with this and that properties”).

Common phrases I confronted from astronomical literature is that authors’ strategy is statistically rigorous, superior, or powerful without showing why and how it is rigorous, superior, or powerful. I tried to convey these pitfalls and general restrictions in their employed statistical methods. Their strategy is not “statistically robust” nor “statistically powerful” nor “statistically rigorous.” Statisticians have own measures of “superiority” to discuss the improvement in their statistics, analysis strategies, and methodology.

It has not been easy since I never intend to case specific fault picking every time I see these statements. A method believed to be robust can be proven as not a robust method with your data and models. By simulations and derivations with the sufficient description of conditions, your excellent method can be presented with statistical rigors.

Within similar circumstances for statistical modeling and data analysis, there’s a trade off between robustness and conditions among statistical methodologies. Before stating a particular method adopted is robust or rigid, powerful or insensitive, efficient or inefficient, and so on; derivation, proof, or simulation studies are anticipated to be named the analysis and procedure is statistically excellent.

Before it gets too long, I’d like say that statistics have traditions for declaring working methods via proofs, simulations, or derivations. Each has their foundations: assumptions and conditions to be stated as “robust”, “efficient”, “powerful”, or “consistent.” When new statistics are introduced in astronomical literature, I hope to see some additional effort of matching statistical conditions to the properties of target data and some statistical rigor (derivations or simulations) prior to saying they are “robust”, “powerful”, or “superior.”

]]> 1
arxiv list Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:18:36 +0000 hlee When I begin to subscribe arXiv/astro-ph and arXiv/stat, although only for a year I listed astro-ph papers featuring relatively advanced statistics, I also kept more papers relevant to astrostatistics beyond astro-ph or introducing hot topics in statistics and computer science for astronomical data applications. While creating my own arXiv as follows, I had a hope to write up short introductions of statistics that are unlikely known to most of astronomers (like my MADS) and matching subjects/targets in astronomy. I thought such effort could spawn new collaborations or could expand understanding of statistics among astronomers (see Magic Crystal). Well, I couldn’t catch up the growth rate and it’s about time to terminate the hope. However, I thought some papers can be useful to some slog subscribers. I hope they do.

  • [0704.1743] Fukugita, Nakamura, Okamura, et al (catalogue of morphologically classified galaxies from the SDSS database for trying various machine learning algorithms for automated classification)
  • [0911.1015] Gudendort, Segers ( Extreme-Value Copulas)
  • [0710.2024] Franz (Ratios: A short guide to confidence limits and proper use)
  • [0707.4473] Covey, Ivezic, Schlegel, Finkbeiner, et al. (Outliers in SDSS and 2MASS)
  • [0511503] (astro-ph) MNRAS,Nolan, Harva, Kaban, Raychaudhury, data driven bayesian approach
  • [0505017] (cs) Abellanas, Clavero, Hurtado, Delaunay depth
  • [0706.2704] (astro-ph) Wang, Zhang, Liu, Zhao (SDSS, kernel regression) Quantile regression can be applied
  • [0805.0056] Kong, Mizera, Quantile Tomography: using quantiles with multivariate data
  • [0907.5236] Gosh, Resnick Mean Excess Plots, Pareto
  • [0907.3454] Rinaldo, Wasserman (Low-Noise Density Clustering)
  • [0906.3979] Friendly (Golden Age of Statistical Graphics)
  • [0905.2819] Benjamini, Gavrilov (FDR control)
  • [0903.2651] Ambler, Silverman (Spatial point processes)
  • [0906.0562] Loubes, Rochet, Regularization with Approx. L^2 maximum entropy method
  • [0904.0430] Diederichs, Juditski, et al (Sparse NonGaussian Component Analysis)
  • [0905.0454] McWhirter,Proudler (eds) *Mathematics in Signal Processing V*
    [Tensor Decompositions, by *Peirre Comon*]
  • [0904.3842] Li, Dong (Dimension Reduction)
  • [0903.1283] Wiesel, Eldar, Hero III (Covariance estimation, graphical models)
  • [0904.1148] Beynaud-Bouret, Rivoirard
  • [0903.5147] cai, Zhou (Data driven BLock Thresholding approach to wavelet estimation)
  • [0905.0483] Harmany, Marcia, Willet (Sparse Poisson intensity reconstruction)
  • [0904.2949] Jhort, McKeague, van Keilegom (Empirical Likelihood)
  • [0809.3373] (astro-ph) Bailer-Jones, Smith, et al. (GAIA, SVM)
  • [0904.0156] Berger, Bernardo, Sun (formal definition of reference priors)
  • [0703360] ( Drton *(LRTs and singularities)*
  • [0807.3719] Shi, Belkin, Bin Yu
  • [0903.5480] Andrieu, Roberts
  • [0903.3620] Casella, Consonni (Reconciling Model Selection and Prediction)
  • [0903.0447] Alqallaf, van Aelst et al (propa. outliers in multivariate data)
  • [0903.2654] Ambler, Silverman (Bayesian wvelet thresholding)
  • [0206366] (astro-ph) van de Weygaert, *Comis Foam*
  • [0806.0560] Noble, Nowak, Beyond XSPEC, ISIS
  • [0908.3553] Liang, Stochastic approximation (SAMC), Bayesian model selection
  • [0804.3829] Liu, Li, *Hao,* Jin
  • [0802.2097] Roelofs, Bassa, et al
  • [0805.3983] Carlberg, Sullivan, et al (Clusering of SN IA host galaxies)
  • [0808.0572] *Efron, Microarrays, Empirical Bayes, and Two groups model*
  • [0805.4264] Tempel, Einasto, Einasto, Saar, Anatomy of galaxy functions
  • [0909.0170] Estate, Khmaladze, Koul, (GoF problem for errors in nonparametric regression: dist’n free approach)
  • [0909.0608] *Liu, Lindsay*
  • [0702052] de Wit, Auchere (astro-ph, multispectral analysis of solar EUV images)
  • [0508651] Pires, Juin, Yvon, et al (astro-ph, Sunyaev-Zel’dovich clusters)
  • [0808.0012] Caticha (on slog, lectures on prob., entropy & stat. physics)
  • [0808.3587] Verbeke, Molenberghs, Beunckens, Model selection with incomplete data
  • [0806.1487] Scheider et al. Sim. and cos. inference: a statistical model for power spectra means and covarances.
  • [0807.4209] Adamakis, Morton-Jones, Walsh (solar physics, Bayes Factor)
  • [0808.3852] Diaconis, Khare, Saloff-Coste
  • [0807.3734] Rocha, Zhao, *Bin Yu* (SPLICE)
  • [0807.1005] Erven, Grunwald, Rooij ( … AIC-BIC dilemma)
  • [0805.2838] *E.L. Lehmann* (historical account)
  • [0805.4136] Genovese, Freeman, Wasserman, Nichol, Miller
  • [0806.3301] Tibshirani (not robert, but ryan)
  • [0706.3622] Wittek, Barko (physics,data-an)
  • [0805.4417] Georgakakis, et at (logN-logS, a bit fishy to me)
  • [0805.4141] Genovese, Perone-Pacifico, et al
  • [0806.3286] Chipman, George, McChulloch (BART)
  • [0710.2245] Efron (size, power, and FDR)
  • [0807.2900] Richards, Freeman, Lee, Schafer (PCA)
  • [0609042] (math.ST) Hoff (SVD)
  • [0707.0701] (cs.AI) Luss, d’Aspremont (Sparse PCA)
  • [0901.4252] Benko, Hardle, Kneip (Common Functional PC)
  • [0505017] (cs.CG) Abellanas, Claverol, Hutado (Delaunay depth)
  • [0906.1905] (astro-ph.IM) Guio, Achilleos, VOISE, Voronoi Image Segmentation algorithm
  • [0605610] (astro-ph) Sochting, Huber, Clowes, Howell (FSVS Cluster Catalogue, Voronoi Tessellation)
  • [0611473] (math.ST) Rigollet, Vert, Plug-in, Density Level Sets
  • [0707.0481] Lee, Nadler, Wasserman (Treelets)
  • [0805.4417] Georgakakis, et at (logN-logS, a bit fishy to me)
  • [0805.4141] Genovese, Perone-Pacifico, et al
  • [0806.3286] Chipman, George, McChulloch (BART)
  • [0710.2245] Efron (size, power, and FDR)
  • [0807.2900] Richards, Freeman, Lee, Schafer (PCA)
  • [0609042] (math.ST) Hoff (SVD)
  • [0707.0701] (cs.AI) Luss, d’Aspremont (Sparse PCA)
  • [0901.4252] Benko, Hardle, Kneip (Common Functional PC)
  • [0505017] (cs.CG) Abellanas, Claverol, Hutado (Delaunay depth)
  • [0906.1905] (astro-ph.IM) Guio, Achilleos, VOISE, Voronoi Image Segmentation algorithm
  • [0605610] (astro-ph) Sochting, Huber, Clowes, Howell (FSVS Cluster Catalogue, Voronoi Tessellation)
  • [0611473] (math.ST) Rigollet, Vert, Plug-in, Density Level Sets
  • [0707.0481] Lee, Nadler, Wasserman (Treelets)
  • [0805.2325] (astro-ph) Loh (block boostrap, subsampling)
  • [0901.0751] Chen, Wu, Yi (Copula, Semiparametric Markov Model)
  • [0911.3944] White, Khudanpur, Wolfe (Likelihood based Semi-Supervised Model Selection with applications to Speech Processing)
  • [0911.4650] Varoquaux, Sadaghiani
  • [0803.2344] Vossen
  • [0805.0269] Leach et al (Component Separation methods for the Plank mission: Appendix reviews various component separation/dimension reduction methods)
  • [0907.4728] Arlot, Celisse (survey of CV for model selection)
  • [0908.2503] Biau, Parta (sequential quantile prediction of time series)
  • [0905.4378] Ben-Haim, Eldar, (CRBound for Sparse Estimation)
  • [0906.3082] Cohen, Sackrowitz, Xu (Multiple Testing for dependent case)
  • [0906.3091] Sarkar, Guo (FDR)
  • [0903.5161] Rinner, Dickhaus, Roters (FDR)
  • [0810.4808] Huang, CHen (ANOVA, coefficient, F-test for local poly. regression)
  • [0901.4752] Chretien, (Robust est. of Gaussian mixtures)
  • [0908.2918] James, Wang, Zhu (Functional linear regression)
  • [0908.3961] Clifford, Cosma
  • [0906.3662] Lindquist (stat. anal. fMRI data)
  • [0706.1062] Clauset, Shalizi, Newman (PowerLaw dist’n)
  • [0712.0881] Zuo, Hastie, Tibshirani (DoF, Lasso)
  • [0712.0901] Jiang, Luan, Wang
  • [0705.4020] Chattopadhyay, Misra, et al (GRB, classification, model based)
  • [0707.1891] Holmberg, Nordstrom, Anderson (isochrones, calibration, Geneva-Copenhagen)
  • [0708.1510] Cobb, Bailyn, Connecting GRBs and galaxies:
  • [0705.2774] Kelly
  • [0708.0302] Chamger, James, Lambert, Wiel (incremental quantile, monitoring)
  • [0708.0169] Mikhail, Data-driven goodness of fit tests, attempts to generalize the theory of score tests
  • [0706.1495] Huskova, Kirch, Bootstrapping CI for the change point of time series
  • [0708.4030] Richer, Dotter, et al (NGC6397, GC, CMD, LF)
  • [0708.1071] Shepp, Statistical thinking: From Tukey to Vardi and beyond
  • [0708.0499] *Hunter, Wang, Hettmansperger *
  • [0704.0781] Cabrera, Firmani et al (Swift, long GRBs)
  • [0706.2590] Ramos, &Extreme Value Theory and the solar cycle (pareto dist’n, survival)*
  • [0706.2704] Wang, Zhang, Liu, Zhao (kernel regression, CV, redshift) <- quantile regression?
  • [0707.1611] Budavari, Szalay, (identification, Bayes factor)
  • [0707.1900] Vetere, Soffitta, et al. (GRB, BeppoSAX)
  • [0707.1982] Kim, *Liddle* (random matrix mass spectrum)
  • [0707.2064] Allen, (Star Formation, Bayesian)
  • [0011057] (hep-ex) Cranmer, Kernel Estimation in High Energy Physics
  • [0512484] (astro-ph) Mukherjee, Parkinson, Corasaniti, *Liddle* (model selection, dark energy)
  • [0701113] (astro-ph) Liddle (information criteria for astrophysical model selection)
  • [0810.2821] Cozman, concentration inequalities and LLNs under irrelevance of lower and upper expectations.
  • [0810.5275] Hall, Park, Samworth
  • [0709.1538] Einbeck, Evers, *Bailer-Jones*, localized principal components
  • [0804.4068] *Pires, Stark*, et al, LASTLens (week lensing)
  • [0804.0713] Delaigle, Hall, Meister
  • [0802.0131] (astro-ph) Bobin, Starck, Ottensamer (*Compressed Sensing* in Astronomy)
  • [0803.1708] Taylor, Worsley, (Random Fields of Multivariate Test Statistics, shape analysis)
  • [0803.1736] Salibian-Barrera, Yohai (high breakdown point robust regression, censored data)
  • [0803.4026] Amini, Wainwright, (Sparse Principal Components)
  • [0803.1752] Ren, (weighted empirical liklihood)
  • [0803.3863] Efron (simultaneous inference)
  • [0801.3552] Clifford, Cosma, probabilistic counting algorithms
  • [0802.1406] Blanchard, Roquain (multiple testing)
  • [0707.2877] van de Weygaert
  • [0806.3932] Vavrek, Balazs, Meszaros, etal (testing the randomness in the sky distribution of GRBs), MNRAS, 391(3), 2008
  • [0911.3769] Chan, Spatial clustering, LRT
  • [0911.3749] Hall, Miller
  • [0909.0184] Chan, Hall robust nearest neighbor methods for classifying high dimensional data
  • [0911.3827] Jung, Marron, PCA High Dim
  • [0911.3531] Owen, Karl Pearson’s meta analysis revisited
  • [0911.3501] Wang, Zhu, Zhou, Quantile regression varying coefficient models
  • [0505200] (physica) *Pilla, Loader, Taylor*
  • [0501289] (math.ST) *Meinshausen, Rice* Estimating the proportion of false null hypotheses among a large number of independently tested hypotheses.
  • [0806.1326] Velez, Ariste, Semel (PCA, Sun, magnetic fields)
  • [0906.4582] *Belabbas, Wolfe*, PCA, high-dimensional data
  • [0903.3002] Huang, Zhang, Metaxas Learning with Structured Sparsity
  • [9209010] (gr-qc) Finn, Detection, Measurement, and Gravitational Radiation
  • [0112467] (astro-ph) Petrosian
  • [0103040] (astro-ph) Peebles, N-point correlation functions
  • [9912329] (astro-ph) Kerscher, Stat. analysis of large scale structure in the universe Minkowski functional and J function
  • [0107417] Connolly, Scranton, et al. Early SDSS
  • [0511503] (math.ST) Pilla, Loader, Volume-of-Tube Formula: Perturbation tests, mixture models, and scan statistics
  • [0503033] (astro-ph) Battye, Moss
  • [0504022] (astro-ph) Trotta, Applications of Bayes Model Selection to cosmological parameters
  • [0304301] (astro-ph) Nakamichi, Morikawa, AIC, is galaxy dist’n non-extensive and non-gaussian?
  • [0110230] (astro-ph) Nichol, Chong, Connolly, et al
  • [0806.1506] (astro-ph) Unzicker, Fischer, 2D galaxy dist’n, SDSS
  • [0304005] (astro-ph) Maller, McIntosh, et al. (Angular correlation funtion, Power spectrum)
  • [0108439] (astro-ph) Boschan (angular and 3D correlation functions)
  • [9601103 (astro-ph) Maddox, Efstathiou, Sutherland (sys errors, angular correlation function)
  • [0806.0520] Vio, Andreani
  • [0807.4672] Zhang, Johnson, Little, Cao
  • [0911.4546] Hobert, Roy, Robert
  • [0911.4207] Calsaverini, Vicente (information theory and copula)
  • [0911.4021] Fan, Wu, Feng (Local Quasi-Likelihood with a parametric guide) *
  • [0911.4076] Hall, Jin, Miller
  • [0911.4080] Genovese, Jin, Wasserman
  • [0802.2174] Faure, Kneib, et al. (strong lense, COSMOS)
  • [0802.1213] Bridle et al (Great08 Challenge)
  • [0711.0690] Davies, Kovac, Meise (Nonparametric Regression, Confidence regions and regularization)
  • [0901.3245] Nadler
  • [0908.2901] Hong, Meeker, McCalley
  • [0501221] (math) Cadre (Kernel Estimation of Density Level Sets)
  • [0908.2926] Oreshkin, Coates (Error Propagation in Particle Filters)
  • [0811.1663] *Lyons* (Open Statistical Issues in Particle Physics)
  • [0901.4392] Johnstone, Lu (Sparse Principle Component Analysis)
  • [0803.2095] Hall, Jin (HC)
  • [0709.4078] Giffin (… Life after Shannon)
  • [0802.3364] Leeb (model selection and evalutioin)
  • [0810.4752] Luxburg, Scholkopf (Stat. Learning Theory…)
  • [0708.1441] van de Weygaert, Schaap, The cosmic web: geometric analysis
  • [0804.2752] Buhlmann, Hothorn (Boosting algorithms…)
  • [0810.0944] Aydin, Pataki, Wang, Bullitt, Marron (PCA for trees)
  • [0711.0989] Chen (SDSS, volume limited sample)
  • [0709.1538] Einbeck, Evers, Bailer-Jones (Localized PC)
  • [0610835] (math.ST) Lehmann (On LRTs)
  • [0604410] (math.ST) Buntine, Discrete Component Analysis
  • [0707.4621] Hallin, Paindaveine (semiparametrically efficient rank-based inference I)
  • [0708.0079] Hallin, H. Oja, Paindaveine ( same as above II)
  • [0708.0976] Singh, Xie, Strawderman (confidence distribution)
  • [0706.3014] Gordon, Trotta (Bayesian calibrated significance levels.. the usage of p-values looks awkward)
  • [0709.0711] Quireza, Rocha-Pinto, Maciel
  • [0709.1208] Kuin, Rosen (measurement erros)
  • [0709.1359] Huertas-Company, et al (SVM, morphological classification)
  • [0708.2340] Miller, Kitching, Heymans, et. al. (Bayesian Galaxy Shape Measurement, weak lensing survey)
  • [0709.4316] Farchione, Kabaila (confidence intervals for the normal mean)
  • [0710.4245] Fearnhead, Papaspiliopoulos, Roberts (Particle Filters)
  • [0705.4199] (astro-ph) Leccardi, Molendi , an unbiased temp estimator for stat. poor X-ray specra (can be improved… )
  • [0712.1663] Meinshausen, *Bickel, Rice* (efficient blind search)
  • [0706.4108] *Bickel, Kleijn, Rice* (Detecting Periodicity in Photon Arrival Times)
  • [0704.1584] Leeb, Potscher (estimate the unconditional distribution of post model selection estimator)
  • [0711.2509] Pope, Szapudi (Shrinkage Est. Power Spectrum Covariance matrix)
  • [0703746] (math.ST) Flegal, Maran, Jones (MCMC: can we trush the third significant figure?)
  • [0710.1965] (physics.soc-ph) Volchenkov, Blanchard, Sestieri of Venice
  • [0712.0637] Becker, Silvestri, Owen, Ivezic, Lupton (in pursuit of LSST science requirements)
  • [0703040] Johnston, Teodoro, *Martin Hendry* Completeness I: revisted, reviewed, and revived
  • [0910.5449] Friedenberg, Genovese (multiple testing, remote sensing, LSST)
  • [0903.0474] Nordman, Stationary Bootstrap’s Variance (Check Lahiri99)
  • [0706.1062] ( Clauset, Shalizi, Newman (power law distributions in empirical data)
  • [0805.2946] Kelly, Fan, Vestergaard (LF, Gaussian mixture, MCMC)
  • [0503373] (astro-ph) Starck, Pires, Refregier (weak lensing mass reconstruction using wavelets)
  • [0909.0349] Panaretos
  • [0903.5463] Stadler, Buhlmann
  • [0906.2128] Hall, Lee, Park, Paul
  • [0906.2530] Donoho, Tanner
  • [0905.3217] Hirakawa, Wolfe
  • [0903.0464] Clarke, Hall
  • [0701196] (math) Lee, Meng
  • [0805.4136] Genovese, Freeman, Wasserman, NIchol, Miller
  • [0705.2774] Kelly
  • [0910.1473] Lieshout
  • [0906.1698] Spokoiny
  • [0704.3704] Feroz, Hobson
  • [0711.2349] Muller, Welsh
  • [0711.3236] Kabaila, Giri
  • [0711.1917] Leng
  • [0802.0536] Wang
  • [0801.4627] Potscher, Scheider
  • [0711.0660] Potscher, Leeb
  • [0711.1036] Potscher
  • [0702781] ( Potscher
  • [0711.0993] Kabaila, Giri
  • [0802.0069] Ghosal, Lember, Vaart
  • [0704.1466] Leeb, Potscher
  • [0701781] (math) Grochenig, Potscher, Rauhut
  • [0702703] (math.ST) Leeb, Potscher
  • [astro-ph:0911.1777] Computing the Bayesian Evidence from a Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation of the Posterior Distribution (Martin Weinberg)
  • [0812.4933] Wiaux, Jacques (Compressed sensing, interferometry)
  • [0708.2184] Sung, Geyer
  • [0811.1705] Meyer
  • [0811.1700] Witten, Tibshirani
  • [0706.1703] Land, SLosar
  • [0712.1458] Loh, Zhu
  • [0808.4042] Commenges
  • [0806.3978] Vincent Vu, Bin Yu, Robert Kass
  • [0808.4032] Stigler
  • [0805.1944] astro-ph
  • [0807.1815] Cabella, Marinucci
  • [0808.0777] Buja, Kunsch
  • [0809.1024] Xu, Grunwald
  • [0807.4081] Roquain, Wiel
  • [0806.4105] Rofling, Ribshirani
  • [0808.0657 HUbert, Rousseeuw, Aelst
  • [0112467] (astro-ph) Petrosian
  • [0808.2902] Robert, Casella, A History of MCMC
  • [0809.2754] Grunwald, VItanyi, Algorithmic INofmration THeory
  • [0809.4866] Carter, Raich, Hero, An information geometric framework for DImensionality reduction
  • [0809.5032] Allman, Matias, Rhodes
  • [0811.0528] Owen
  • [0811.0757] Chamandy, Tayler, Gosselin
  • [0810.3985] Stute, Wang
  • [0804.2996] Stigler
  • [0807.4086] Commenges, Sayyareh, Letenneur…
  • [0710.5343] Peng, Paul, MLE, functional PC, sparse longitudinal data
  • [0709.1648] Cator, Jongbloed, et al. *Asymptotics: Particles, Processes, and Inverse problems*
  • [0710.3478] *Hall, Qiu, Nonparametric Est. of a PSF in Multivariate Problems*
  • [0804.3034] Catalan, Isern, Carcia-Berro, Ribas (some stellar clusters, LF, Mass F, weighted least square)
  • [0801.1081] Hernandez, Valls-Gabaud, estimation of basic parameters, stellar populations
  • [0410072] (math.ST) Donoho, Jin, HC, detecting sparse heterogeneous mixtures
  • [0803.3863] Efron
  • [0706.4190] Rondonotti, Marron, Park, SiZer for time series
  • [0709.0709] Lian, Bayes and empirical Bayes changepoint problems
  • [0802.3916] Carvalho, Rocha, Hobson, PowellSnakes
  • [0709.0300] Roger, Ferrera, Lahav, et al, Decoding the spectra of SDSS early-type galaxies
  • [0810.4807] Pesquet, et al. SURE, Signal/Image Devonvolution
  • [0906.0346] (cs.DM) Semiparametric estimation of a noise model with quantization errors
  • [0207026] (hep-ex) Barlow, Systematic Errors: Facts and Fictions
  • [0705.4199, Leccardi, Molendi, unbiased temperature estimator for statistically poor x-ray spectra
  • [0709.1208] Kuin, Rosen, measurement error Swift
  • [0708.4316] Farchione, *Kabila* confidence intervals for the normal mean utilizing prior information
  • [0708.0976] Singh, Xia, Strawderman confidence distribution
  • [0901.0721] Albrecht, et al. (dark energy)
  • [0908.3593] Singh, Scott, Nowak, adaptive hausdorff estimation of density level sets
  • [0702052] (astro-ph) de Wit, Auchere, Multipectral analysis, sun, EUV, morphology
  • [0706.1580] Lopes, photometric redshifts, SDSS
  • [0106038] (astro-ph) Richards et al photometric redshifts of quasars
]]> 0
Erich Lehmann Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:46:34 +0000 hlee He was one of the frequently cited statisticians in this slog because of his influence in statistics. It is extremely difficult to avoid his textbooks and his establishment of theoretical statistics when one begins to comprehend and to appreciate the modern theoretical statistics. To me, Testing Statistical Hypotheses and Theory of Point Estimation are two pillars of graduate statistical education. In addition, Elements of Large Sample Theory and Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks are also eye openers.

It has not been long since I read Reminiscences of a Statistician: The Company I Kept. I quoted this book and an arXiv paper here :see the posts. I became very grateful to him because of his contributions to the statistical science. I feel so sad to see his obituary, particularly when I’m soon going to have time for reading his books more carefully.

]]> 0
From Quantile Probability and Statistical Data Modeling Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:06:24 +0000 hlee by Emanuel Parzen in Statistical Science 2004, Vol 19(4), pp.652-662 JSTOR

I teach that statistics (done the quantile way) can be simultaneously frequentist and Bayesian, confidence intervals and credible intervals, parametric and nonparametric, continuous and discrete data. My first step in data modeling is identification of parametric models; if they do not fit, we provide nonparametric models for fitting and simulating the data. The practice of statistics, and the modeling (mining) of data, can be elegant and provide intellectual and sensual pleasure. Fitting distributions to data is an important industry in which statisticians are not yet vendors. We believe that unifications of statistical methods can enable us to advertise, “What is your question? Statisticians have answers!”

I couldn’t help liking this paragraph because of its bitter-sweetness. I hope you appreciate it as much as I did.

]]> 0
[ArXiv] Voronoi Tessellations Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:29:24 +0000 hlee As a part of exploring spatial distribution of particles/objects, not to approximate via Poisson process or Gaussian process (parametric), nor to impose hypotheses such as homogenous, isotropic, or uniform, various nonparametric methods somewhat dragged my attention for data exploration and preliminary analysis. Among various nonparametric methods, the one that I fell in love with is tessellation (state space approaches are excluded here). Computational speed wise, I believe tessellation is faster than kernel density estimation to estimate level sets for multivariate data. Furthermore, conceptually constructing polygons from tessellation is intuitively simple. However, coding and improving algorithms is beyond statistical research (check books titled or key-worded partially by computational geometry). Good news is that for computation and getting results, there are some freely available softwares, packages, and modules in various forms.

As a part of introducing nonparametric statistics, I wanted to write about applications of computation geometry from the nonparametric 2/3 dimensional density estimation perspective. Also, the following article came along when I just began to collect statistical applications in astronomy (my [ArXiv] series). This [arXiv] paper, in fact, initiated me to investigate Voronoi Tessellations in astronomy in general.

Voronoi Tessellations and the Cosmic Web: Spatial Patterns and Clustering across the Universe
by Rien van de Weygaert

Since then, quite time has passed. In the mean time, I found more publications in astronomy specifically using tessellation as a main tool of nonparametric density estimation and for data analysis. Nonetheless, in general, topics in spatial statistics tend to be unrecognized or almost ignored in analyzing astronomical spatial data (I mean data points with coordinate information). Many seem only utilizing statistics partially or not at all. Some might want to know how often Voronoi tessellation is applied in astronomy. Here, I listed results from my ADS search by limiting tessellation in title key words. :

Then, the topic has been forgotten for a while until this recent [arXiv] paper, which reminded me my old intention for introducing tessellation for density estimation and for understanding large scale structures or clusters (astronomers’ jargon, not the term in machine or statistical learning).

[arxiv:stat.ME:0910.1473] Moment Analysis of the Delaunay Tessellation Field Estimator
by M.N.M van Lieshout

Looking into plots of the papers by van de Weygaert or van Lieshout, without mathematical jargon and abstraction, one can immediately understand what Voronoi and Delaunay Tessellation is (Delaunay Tessellation is also called as Delaunay Triangulation (wiki). Perhaps, you want to check out wiki:Delaunay Tessellation Field Estimator as well). Voronoi tessellations have been adopted in many scientific/engineering fields to describe the spatial distribution. Astronomy is not an exception. Voronoi Tessellation has been used for field interpolation.

van de Weygaert described Voronoi tessellations as follows:

  1. the asymptotic frame for the ultimate matter distribution,
  2. the skeleton of the cosmic matter distribution,
  3. a versatile and flexible mathematical model for weblike spatial pattern, and
  4. a natural asymptotic result of an evolution in which low-density expanding void regions dictate the spatial organization of the Megaparsec universe, while matter assembles in high-density filamentary and wall-like interstices between the voids.

van Lieshout derived explicit expressions for the mean and variance of Delaunay Tessellatoin Field Estimator (DTFE) and showed that for stationary Poisson processes, the DTFE is asymptotically unbiased with a variance that is proportional to the square intensity.

We’ve observed voids and filaments of cosmic matters with patterns of which theory hasn’t been discovered. In general, those patterns are manifested via observed galaxies, both directly and indirectly. Individual observed objects, I believe, can be matched to points that construct Voronoi polygons. They represent each polygon and investigating its distributional properly helps to understand the formation rules and theories of those patterns. For that matter, probably, various topics in stochastic geometry, not just Voronoi tessellation, can be adopted.

There are plethora information available on Voronoi Tessellation such as the website of International Symposium on Voronoi Diagrams in Science and Engineering. Two recent meeting websites are ISVD09 and ISVD08. Also, the following review paper is interesting.

Centroidal Voronoi Tessellations: Applications and Algorithms (1999) Du, Faber, and Gunzburger in SIAM Review, vol. 41(4), pp. 637-676

By the way, you may have noticed my preference for Voronoi Tessellation over Delaunay owing to the characteristics of this centroidal Voronoi that each observation is the center of each Voronoi cell as opposed to the property of Delaunay triangulation that multiple simplices are associated one observation/point. However, from the perspective of understanding the distribution of observations as a whole, both approaches offer summaries and insights in a nonparametric fashion, which I put the most value on.

]]> 0
[ArXiv] classifying spectra Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:08:07 +0000 hlee

Variable Selection and Updating In Model-Based Discriminant Analysis for High Dimensional Data with Food Authenticity Applications
by Murphy, Dean, and Raftery

Classifying or clustering (or semi supervised learning) spectra is a very challenging problem from collecting statistical-analysis-ready data to reducing the dimensionality without sacrificing complex information in each spectrum. Not only how to estimate spiky (not differentiable) curves via statistically well defined procedures of estimating equations but also how to transform data that match the regularity conditions in statistics is challenging.

Another reason that astrophysics spectroscopic data classification and clustering is more difficult is that observed lines, and their intensities and FWHMs on top of continuum are related to atomic database and latent variables/hyper parameters (distance, rotation, absorption, column density, temperature, metalicity, types, system properties, etc). Frequently it becomes very challenging mixture problem to separate lines and to separate lines from continuum (boundary and identifiability issues). These complexity only appears in astronomy spectroscopic data because we only get indirect or uncontrolled data ruled by physics, as opposed to the the meat species spectra in the paper. These spectroscopic data outside astronomy are rather smooth, observed in controlled wavelength range, and no worries for correcting recession/radial velocity/red shift/extinction/lensing/etc.

Although the most relevant part to astronomers, i.e. spectroscopic data processing is not discussed in this paper, the most important part, statistical learning application to complex curves, spectral data, is well described. Some astronomers with appropriate data would like to try the variable selection strategy and to check out the classification methods in statistics. If it works out, it might save space for storing spectral data and time to collect high resolution spectra. Please, keep in mind that it is not necessary to use the same variable selection strategy. Astronomers can create better working versions for classification and clustering purpose, like Hardness Ratios, often used to reduce the dimensionality of spectral data since low total count spectra are not informative in the full energy (wavelength) range. Curse of dimensionality!.

]]> 0
Scatter plots and ANCOVA Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:46:14 +0000 hlee Astronomers rely on scatter plots to illustrate correlations and trends among many pairs of variables more than any scientists[1]. Pages of scatter plots with regression lines are often found from which the slope of regression line and errors bars are indicators of degrees of correlation. Sometimes, too many of such scatter plots makes me think that, overall, resources for drawing nice scatter plots and papers where those plots are printed are wasted. Why not just compute correlation coefficients and its error and publicize the processed data for computing correlations, not the full data, so that others can verify the computation results for the sake of validation? A couple of scatter plots are fine but when I see dozens of them, I lost my focus. This is another cultural difference.

When having many pairs of variables that demands numerous scatter plots, one possibility is using parallel coordinates and a matrix of correlation coefficients. If Gaussian distribution is assumed, which seems to be almost all cases, particularly when parametrizing measurement errors or fitting models of physics, then error bars of these coefficients also can be reported in a matrix form. If one considers more complex relationships with multiple tiers of data sets, then one might want to check ANCOVA (ANalysis of COVAriance) to find out how statisticians structure observations and their uncertainties into a model to extract useful information.

I’m not saying those simple examples from wikipedia, wikiversity, or publicly available tutorials on ANCOVA are directly applicable to statistical modeling for astronomical data. Most likely not. Astrophysics generally handles complicated nonlinear models of physics. However, identifying dependent variables, independent variables, latent variables, covariates, response variables, predictors, to name some jargon in statistical model, and defining their relationships in a rather comprehensive way as used in ANCOVA, instead of pairing variables for scatter plots, would help to quantify relationships appropriately and to remove artificial correlations. Those spurious correlations appear frequently because of data projection. For example, datum points on a circle on the XY plane of the 3D space centered at zero, when seen horizontally, look like that they form a bar, not a circle, producing a perfect correlation.

As a matter of fact, astronomers are aware of removing these unnecessary correlations via some corrections. For example, fitting a straight line or a 2nd order polynomial for extinction correction. However, I rarely satisfy with such linear shifts of data with uncertainty because of changes in the uncertainty structure. Consider what happens when subtracting background leading negative values, a unrealistic consequence. Unless probabilistically guaranteed, linear operation requires lots of care. We do not know whether residuals y-E(Y|X=x) are perfectly normal only if μ and σs in the gaussian density function can be operated linearly (about Gaussian distribution, please see the post why Gaussianity? and the reference therein). An alternative to the subtraction is linear approximation or nonparametric model fitting as we saw through applications of principle component analysis (PCA). PCA is used for whitening and approximating nonlinear functional data (curves and images). Taking the sources of uncertainty and their hierarchical structure properly is not an easy problem both astronomically and statistically. Nevertheless, identifying properties of the observed both from physics and statistics and putting into a comprehensive and structured model could help to find out the causality[2] and the significance of correlation, better than throwing numerous scatter plots with lines from simple regression analysis.

In order to understand why statisticians studied ANCOVA or, in general, ANOVA (ANalysis Of VAriance) in addition to the material in wiki:ANCOVA, you might want to check this page[3] and to utilize your search engine with keywords of interest on top of ANCOVA to narrow down results.

From the linear model perspective, if a response is considered to be a function of redshift (z), then z becomes a covariate. The significance of this covariate in addition to other factors in the model, can be tested later when one fully fit/analyze the statistical model. If one wants to design a model, say rotation speed (indicator of dark matter occupation) as a function of redshift, the degrees of spirality, and the number of companions – this is a very hypothetical proposal due to my lack of knowledge in observational cosmology. I only want to point that the model fitting problem can be seen from statistical modeling like ANCOVA by identifying covariates and relationships – because the covariate z is continuous, and the degrees are fixed effect (0 to 7, 8 tuples), and the number of companions are random effect (cluster size is random), the comprehensive model could be described by ANCOVA. To my knowledge, scatter plots and simple linear regression are marginalizing all additional contributing factors and information which can be the main contributors of correlations, although it may seem Y and X are highly correlated in the scatter plot. At some points, we must marginalize over unknowns. Nonetheless, we still have some nuisance parameters and latent variables that can be factored into the model, different from ignoring them, to obtain advanced insights and knowledge from observations in many measures/dimensions.

Something, I think, can be done with a small/ergonomic chart/table via hypothesis testing, multivariate regression, model selection, variable selection, dimension reduction, projection pursuit, or names of some state of the art statistical methods, is done in astronomy with numerous scatter plots, with colors, symbols, and lines to account all possible relationships within pairs whose correlation can be artificial. I also feel that trees, electricity, or efforts can be saved from producing nice looking scatter plots. Fitting/Analyzing more comprehensive models put into a statistical fashion helps to identify independent variables or covariates causing strong correlation, to find collinear variables, and to drop redundant or uncorrelated predictors. Bayes factors or p-values can be assessed for comparing models, testing significance their variables, and computing error bars appropriately, not the way that the null hypothesis probability is interpreted.

Lastly, ANCOVA is a complete [MADS]. :)

  1. This is not an assuring absolute statement but a personal impression after reading articles of various fields in addition to astronomy. My readings of other fields tell that many rely on correlation statistics but less scatter plots by adding straight lines going through data sets for the purpose of imposing relationships within variable pairs
  2. the way that chi-square fitting is done and the goodness-of-fit test is carried out is understood by the notion that X causes Y and by the practice that the objective function, the sum of (Y-E[Y|X])^2/σ^2 is minimized
  3. It’s a website of Vassar college, that had a first female faculty in astronomy, Maria Mitchell. It is said that the first building constructed is the Vassar College Observatory, which is now a national historic landmark. This historical factor is the only reason of pointing this website to drag some astronomers attentions beyond statistics.
]]> 0
[MADS] logistic regression Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:15:08 +0000 hlee Although a bit of time has elapsed since my post space weather, saying that logistic regression is used for prediction, it looks like still true that logistic regression is rarely used in astronomy. Otherwise, it could have been used for the similar purpose not under the same statistical jargon but under the Bayesian modeling procedures.

Maybe, some astronomers want to check out this versatile statistical method, wiki:logistic regression to see whether they can fit their data to this statistical method in order to model/predict observation rates, unobserved rates, undetected rates, detected rates, absorbed rates, and so on in terms of what are observed and additional/external observations, knowledge, and theories. I wonder what would it be like if the following is fit using logistic regression: detection limits, Eddington bias, incompleteness, absorption, differential emission measures, opacity, etc plus brute force Monte Carlo simulations emulating likely data to be fit. Then, responses are the probability of observed vs not observed as a function of redshift, magnitudes, counts, flux, wavelength/frequency, and other measurable variables or latent variables.

My simple reasoning that astronomers observe partially and they will never have complete sample, has imposed a prejudice that logistic regression would appear in astronomical literature rather frequently. Against my bet, it was [MADS]. All stat softwares have packages and modules for logistic regression; therefore, you have a data set, application is very straight forward.

Although logistic regression models are given in many good tutorials, literature, or websites, it might be useful to have a simple but intuitive form of logistic regression for sloggers.

When you have binary responses, metal poor star (Y=1) vs. metal rich star (Y=2), and predictors, such as colors, distance, parallax, precision, and other columns in catalogs (X is a matrix comprised of these variables),
logit(Pr(Y=1|X))=\log \frac{Pr(Y=1|X)}{1-Pr(Y=1|X)} = \beta_o+{\mathbf X^T \beta} .
As astronomers fit a linear regression model to get the intercept and slope, the same approach is applied to get intercepts and coefficients of logistic regression models.

]]> 0