The AstroStat Slog

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. Continue reading ‘Scatter plots and ANCOVA’ »

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[↩]

What XKCD says:


The mouseover text on the original says “Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’.”

It is a bad habit, hard to break, the temptation is great.

The most widely used tool for detecting sources in X-ray images, especially Chandra data, is the wavelet-based wavdetect, which uses the Mexican Hat (MH) wavelet. Now, the MH is not a very popular choice among wavelet aficianados because it does not form an orthonormal basis set (i.e., scale information is not well separated), and does not have compact support (i.e., the function extends to inifinity). So why is it used here?
Continue reading ‘Mexican Hat [EotW]’ »

I have been observing some sorts of misconception about statistics and statistical nomenclature evolution in astronomy, which I believe, are attributed to the lack of references in the astronomical society. There are some textbooks designed for junior/senior science and engineering students, which are likely unknown to astronomers. Example-wise, these books are not suitable, to my knowledge. Although I never expect astronomers to learn standard graduate (mathematical) statistics textbooks, I do wish astronomers go beyond Numerical Recipes (W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, & B. P. Flannery) and Error Data Reduction and Analysis for the Physical Sciences (P. R. Bevington & D. K. Robinson). Here are some good ones written by astronomers, engineers, and statisticians: Continue reading ‘Books – a boring title’ »

Seven preprints were chosen this week and two mentioned model selection. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 3rd week, Jan. 2008’ »

It is notable that there’s an astronomy paper contains AIC, BIC, and Bayesian evidence in the title. The topic of the paper, unexceptionally, is cosmology like other astronomy papers discussed these (statistical) information criteria (I only found a couple of papers on model selection applied to astronomical data analysis without articulating CMB stuffs. Note that I exclude Bayes factor for the model selection purpose).

To find the paper or other interesting ones, click Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 2nd week, Jan. 2007’ »

It’s a report about the job market in US.

[astro-ph:0712.2820] The Production Rate and Employment of Ph.D. Astronomers T.S. Metcalfe

Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] Astronomy Job Market in US’ »

One of arxiv/astro-ph preprints, arxiv/0706.1703v1 discusses correlation between galactic HI and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and reports no statistically significant correlation.
Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] Correlation Studies, June 12, 2007’ »