Source author record

Michael Wood

Michael Wood appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

7works
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

On Bayesian Search for the Feasible Space Under Computationally Expensive Constraints

We are often interested in identifying the feasible subset of a decision space under multiple constraints to permit effective design exploration. If determining feasibility required computationally expensive simulations, the cost of exploration would be prohibitive. Bayesian search is data-efficient for such problems: starting from a small dataset, the central concept is to use Bayesian models of constraints with an acquisition function to locate promising solutions that may improve predictions of feasibility when the dataset is augmented. At the end of this sequential active learning approach with a limited number of expensive evaluations, the models can accurately predict the feasibility of any solution obviating the need for full simulations. In this paper, we propose a novel acquisition function that combines the probability that a solution lies at the boundary between feasible and infeasible spaces (representing exploitation) and the entropy in predictions (representing exploration). Experiments confirmed the efficacy of the proposed function.

preprint2020arXiv

Simple Methods for Estimating Confidence Levels, or Tentative Probabilities, for Hypotheses Instead of P Values

In many fields of research null hypothesis significance tests and p values are the accepted way of assessing the degree of certainty with which research results can be extrapolated beyond the sample studied. However, there are very serious concerns about the suitability of p values for this purpose. An alternative approach is to cite confidence intervals for a statistic of interest, but this does not directly tell readers how certain a hypothesis is. Here, I suggest how the framework used for confidence intervals could easily be extended to derive confidence levels, or "tentative probabilities", for hypotheses. I also outline four quick methods for estimating these. This allows researchers to state their confidence in a hypothesis as a direct probability, instead of circuitously by p values referring to an unstated, hypothetical null hypothesis. The inevitable difficulties of statistical inference mean that these probabilities can only be tentative, but probabilities are the natural way to express uncertainties, so, arguably, researchers using statistical methods have an obligation to estimate how probable their hypotheses are by the best available method. Otherwise misinterpretations will fill the void. Key words: Confidence, Null hypothesis significance test, p value, Statistical inference

preprint2016arXiv

Beyond p values: practical methods for analyzing uncertainty in research

This article explains, and discusses the merits of, three approaches for analyzing the certainty with which statistical results can be extrapolated beyond the data gathered. Sometimes it may be possible to use more than one of these approaches. (1) If there is an exact null hypothesis which is credible and interesting (usually not the case), researchers should cite a p value (significance level), although jargon is best avoided. (2) If the research result is a numerical value, researchers should cite a confidence interval. (3) If there are one or more hypotheses of interest, it may be possible to adapt the methods used for confidence intervals to derive an "estimated probability" for each. Under certain circumstances these could be interpreted as Bayesian posterior probabilities. These estimated probabilities can easily be worked out from the p values and confidence intervals produced by packages such as SPSS. Estimating probabilities for hypotheses means researchers can give a direct answer to the question "How certain can we be that this hypothesis is right?".

preprint2014arXiv

P values, confidence intervals, or confidence levels for hypotheses?

Null hypothesis significance tests and p values are widely used despite very strong arguments against their use in many contexts. Confidence intervals are often recommended as an alternative, but these do not achieve the objective of assessing the credibility of a hypothesis, and the distinction between confidence and probability is an unnecessary confusion. This paper proposes a more straightforward (probabilistic) definition of confidence, and suggests how the idea can be applied to whatever hypotheses are of interest to researchers. The relative merits of the different approaches are discussed using a series of illustrative examples: usually confidence based approaches seem more transparent and useful, but there are some contexts in which p values may be appropriate. I also suggest some methods for converting results from one format to another. (The attractiveness of the idea of confidence is demonstrated by the widespread persistence of the completely incorrect idea that p=5% is equivalent to 95% confidence in the alternative hypothesis. In this paper I show how p values can be used to derive meaningful confidence statements, and the assumptions underlying the derivation.) Key words: Confidence interval, Confidence level, Hypothesis testing, Null hypothesis significance tests, P value, User friendliness.

preprint2012arXiv

Bootstrapping Confidence Levels for Hypotheses about Quadratic (U-Shaped) Regression Models

Bootstrapping can produce confidence levels for hypotheses about quadratic regression models - such as whether the U-shape is inverted, and the location of optima. The method has several advantages over conventional methods: it provides more, and clearer, information, and is flexible - it could easily be applied to a wide variety of different types of models. The utility of the method can be enhanced by formulating models with interpretable coefficients, such as the location and value of the optimum. Keywords: Bootstrap resampling; Confidence level; Quadratic model; Regression, U-shape.

preprint2012arXiv

Making statistical methods in management research more useful: some suggestions from a case study

I present a critique of the methods used in a typical paper. This leads to three broad conclusions about the conventional use of statistical methods. First, results are often reported in an unnecessarily obscure manner. Second, the null hypothesis testing paradigm is deeply flawed: estimating the size of effects and citing confidence intervals or levels is usually better. Third, there are several issues, independent of the particular statistical concepts employed, which limit the value of any statistical approach: e.g. difficulties of generalizing to different contexts, and the weakness of some research in terms of the size of the effects found. The first two of these are easily remedied: I illustrate some of the possibilities by re-analyzing the data from the case study article. The third means that in some contexts a statistical approach may not be worthwhile. My case study is a management paper, but similar problems arise in other social sciences. Keywords: Confidence, Hypothesis testing, Null hypothesis significance tests, Philosophy of statistics, Statistical methods, User-friendliness.

preprint2012arXiv

Measurement of the generalized form factors near threshold via $γ^* p \to nπ^+$ at high $Q^2$

We report the first extraction of the pion-nucleon multipoles near the production threshold for the $nπ^+$ channel at relatively high momentum transfer ($Q^2$ up to 4.2 $\rm{GeV^2}$). The dominance of the s-wave transverse multipole ($E_{0+}$), expected in this region, allowed us to access the generalized form factor $G_1$ within the light-cone sum rule (LCSR) framework as well as the axial form factor $G_A$. The data analyzed in this work were collected by the nearly $4π$ CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS) using a 5.754 $\rm{GeV}$ electron beam on a proton target. The differential cross section and the $π-N$-multipole $E_{0+}/G_D$ were measured using two different methods, the LCSR and a direct multipole fit. The results from the two methods are found to be consistent and almost $Q^2$ independent.