I understand you don’t like Bootstrap and I don’t like methods with heavy computations (Monte Carlo Bootstrap sounds wasting to me). Unless someone makes a point that why this Monte Carlo Bootstrap works (theoretic) or clearly shows the results (empirical), we cannot discuss results are sensible or not.

]]>From an empirical standpoint, I haven’t seen it give nonsense results. And why should it? It is a frequentist universe on your desktop.

]]>I’d like to ask an off-the-track question about bootstrap and Monte Carlo. Either parametric or nonparametric, and other modification of bootstrapping involves resampling from data, whereas, regardless parameters are known or not, Monte Carlo simulates sample from a distribution of known or estimated parameters (the latter uses data to estimate parameters and brings up testing issues, like goodness-of-fit test). One impression that I also obtained from reading astro-ph preprints is that sometimes bootstrap is quoted in replacement of Monte Carlo method.

No one taught what Monte Carlo is. I just acquired it through books and papers. Sometimes I felt that the concept of Monte Carlo simulation is different across disciplines (based on conversations with college students in engineering).

]]>