The AstroStat Slog

What if R. A. Fisher was hired by the Royal Observatory in spite that his interest was biology and agriculture, or W. S. Gosset^[1] instead of brewery? An article by E.L. Lehmann made me think this what if. If so, astronomers could have handled errors better than now. Continue reading ‘On the history and use of some standard statistical models’ »

1. Gosset’s pen name was Student, from which the name, Student-t in t-distribution or t-test was spawned.[↩]

Now it’s time for me to write my own astrostat papers instead of spending time for sieving them from [arXiv]. It has been an irresistible temptation scanning daily [arXiv] preprints to look for astronomy and sometimes statistics papers that 1. adopt statistics, 2. contain statistically challenging problems, 3. could be improved by more rigorous statistical applications, 4. look like abusing statistics, 5. may inspire statisticians by the data sets, or 6. might be useful for astronomers’ advancement in the data analysis. The temptation grew too much to be handled. The amount of papers belong to the above selection criteria seems to grow as my understanding widens. Also the mesh gets loose and starts to show holes. Continue reading ‘Discontinuation of weekly [arXiv] series’ »

This is my last [ArXiv] series. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 3rd week, June 2008’ »

As Prof. Speed said, PCA is prevalent in astronomy, particularly this week. Furthermore, a paper explicitly discusses R, a popular statistics package. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 2nd week, June 2008’ »

Despite no statistic related discussion, a paper comparing XSPEC and ISIS, spectral analysis open source applications might bring high energy astrophysicists’ interests this week. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 1st week, June 2008’ »

Eight astro-ph papers and two statistics paper are listed this week. One statistics paper discusses detecting filaments and the other talks about maximum likelihood estimation of satellite images (clouds). Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 4th week, May 2008’ »

Not many this week, but there’s a great read. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 3rd week, May 2008’ »

Earlier this year, Peter Edmonds showed me a press release that the Chandra folks were, at the time, considering putting out describing the possible identification of a Type Ia Supernova progenitor. What appeared to be an accreting white dwarf binary system could be discerned in 4-year old observations, coincident with the location of a supernova that went off in November 2007 (SN2007on). An amazing discovery, but there is a hitch.

And it is a statistical hitch, and involves two otherwise highly reliable and oft used methods giving contradictory answers at nearly the same significance level! Does this mean that the chances are actually 50-50? Really, we need a bona fide statistician to take a look and point out the errors of our ways.. Continue reading ‘Did they, or didn’t they?’ »

There’s no particular opening remark this week. Only I have profound curiosity about jackknife tests in [astro-ph:0805.1994]. Including this paper, a few deserve separate discussions from a statistical point of view that shall be posted. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 2nd week, May 2008’ »

I think I have to review spatial statistics in astronomy, focusing on tessellation (void structure), point process (expanding 2 (3) point correlation function), and marked point process (spatial distribution of hardness ratios of X-ray distant sources, different types of galaxies -not only morphological differences but other marks such as absolute magnitudes and existence of particular features). When? Someday…

In addition to Bayesian methodologies, like this week’s astro-ph, studies on characterizing empirical spatial distributions of voids and galaxies frequently appear, which I believe can be enriched further with the ideas from stochastic geometry and spatial statistics. Click for what was appeared in arXiv this week. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 1st week, May 2008’ »

Since I learned Hubble’s tuning fork^[1] for the first time, I wanted to do classification (semi-supervised learning seems more suitable) galaxies based on their features (colors and spectra), instead of labor intensive human eye classification. Ironically, at that time I didn’t know there is a field of computer science called machine learning nor statistics which do such studies. Upon switching to statistics with a hope of understanding statistical packages implemented in IRAF and IDL, and learning better the contents of Numerical Recipes and Bevington’s book, the ignorance was not the enemy, but the accessibility of data was. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 5th week, Apr. 2008’ »

1. Wikipedia link: Hubble sequence[↩]

The last paper in the list discusses MCMC for time series analysis, applied to sunspot data. There are six additional papers about statistics and data analysis from the week. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 4th week, Apr. 2008’ »

One of the speakers from the google talk series exemplified model based clustering and mentioned the likelihood ratio test (LRT) for defining the number of clusters. Since I’ve seen the examples of ill-mannerly practiced LRTs from astronomical journals, like testing two clusters vs three, or a higher number of components, I could not resist indicating that the LRT is improperly used from his illustration. As a reply, the citation regarding the LRT was different from his plot and the test was carried out to test one component vs. two, which closely observes the regularity conditions. I was relieved not to find another example of the ill-used LRT. Continue reading ‘The LRT is worthless for …’ »

There is a new report from Bernabei et al. (arXiv:0804.2741) of the direct detection of the effects of Dark Matter that is causing a lot of buzz. (The Bad Astronomer has a good summary.) They find yearly modulation in their detected scintillation rate that matches what you would expect if the Earth were rushing through Galactic Dark Matter as it goes around the Sun. They have worked out the significance of the modulation to be 8.2 sigma. Significant! But significant of what? Continue reading ‘Is 8-sigma significant enough for you?’ »

Because of the extensive works by Prof. Peebles and many (observational) cosmologists (almost always I find Prof. Peeble’s book in cosmology literature), the 2 (or 3) point correlation function is much more dominant than any other mathematical and statistical methods to understand the structure of the universe. Unusually, this week finds an astro-ph paper written by a statistics professor addressing the K-function to explore the mystery of the universe.

[astro-ph:0804.3044] J.M. Loh
Estimating Third-Order Moments for an Absorber Catalog

Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] Ripley’s K-function’ »