Source author record

Robert D. Cousins

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

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

physics.data-an hep-ex stat.OT

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works

3topics

2close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

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.

preprint2021arXiv

Connections between statistical practice in elementary particle physics and the severity concept as discussed in Mayo's Statistical Inference as Severe Testing

For many years, philosopher-of-statistics Deborah Mayo has been advocating the concept of severe testing as a key part of hypothesis testing. Her recent book, Statistical Inference as Severe Testing, is a comprehensive exposition of her arguments in the context of a historical study of many threads of statistical inference, both frequentist and Bayesian. Her foundational point of view is called error statistics, emphasizing frequentist evaluation of the errors called Type I and Type II in the Neyman-Pearson theory of frequentist hypothesis testing. Since the field of elementary particle physics (also known as high energy physics) has strong traditions in frequentist inference, one might expect that something like the severity concept was independently developed in the field. Indeed, I find that, at least operationally (numerically), we high-energy physicists have long interpreted data in ways that map directly onto severity. Whether or not we subscribe to Mayo's philosophical interpretations of severity is a more complicated story that I do not address here.

preprint2016arXiv

Should unfolded histograms be used to test hypotheses?

In many analyses in high energy physics, attempts are made to remove the effects of detector smearing in data by techniques referred to as "unfolding" histograms, thus obtaining estimates of the true values of histogram bin contents. Such unfolded histograms are then compared to theoretical predictions, either to judge the goodness of fit of a theory, or to compare the abilities of two or more theories to describe the data. When doing this, even informally, one is testing hypotheses. However, a more fundamentally sound way to test hypotheses is to smear the theoretical predictions by simulating detector response and then comparing to the data without unfolding; this is also frequently done in high energy physics, particularly in searches for new physics. One can thus ask: to what extent does hypothesis testing after unfolding data materially reproduce the results obtained from testing by smearing theoretical predictions? We argue that this "bottom-line-test" of unfolding methods should be studied more commonly, in addition to common practices of examining variance and bias of estimates of the true contents of histogram bins. We illustrate bottom-line-tests in a simple toy problem with two hypotheses.

preprint2011arXiv

Negatively Biased Relevant Subsets Induced by the Most-Powerful One-Sided Upper Confidence Limits for a Bounded Physical Parameter

Suppose an observable x is the measured value (negative or non-negative) of a true mean mu (physically non-negative) in an experiment with a Gaussian resolution function with known fixed rms deviation s. The most powerful one-sided upper confidence limit at 95% C.L. is UL = x+1.64s, which I refer to as the "original diagonal line". Perceived problems in HEP with small or non-physical upper limits for x<0 historically led, for example, to substitution of max(0,x) for x, and eventually to abandonment in the Particle Data Group's Review of Particle Physics of this diagonal line relationship between UL and x. Recently Cowan, Cranmer, Gross, and Vitells (CCGV) have advocated a concept of "power constraint" that when applied to this problem yields variants of diagonal line, including UL = max(-1,x)+1.64s. Thus it is timely to consider again what is problematic about the original diagonal line, and whether or not modifications cure these defects. In a 2002 Comment, statistician Leon Jay Gleser pointed to the literature on recognizable and relevant subsets. For upper limits given by the original diagonal line, the sample space for x has recognizable relevant subsets in which the quoted 95% C.L. is known to be negatively biased (anti-conservative) by a finite amount for all values of mu. This issue is at the heart of a dispute between Jerzy Neyman and Sir Ronald Fisher over fifty years ago, the crux of which is the relevance of pre-data coverage probabilities when making post-data inferences. The literature describes illuminating connections to Bayesian statistics as well. Methods such as that advocated by CCGV have 100% unconditional coverage for certain values of mu and hence formally evade the traditional criteria for negatively biased relevant subsets; I argue that concerns remain. Comparison with frequentist intervals advocated by Feldman and Cousins also sheds light on the issues.