BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Sander Greenland

Sander Greenland contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplicationsmath.STQuantitative Methodsstat.OTStatistics Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

The causal foundations of applied probability and statistics

Statistical science (as opposed to mathematical statistics) involves far more than probability theory, for it requires realistic causal models of data generators - even for purely descriptive goals. Statistical decision theory requires more causality: Rational decisions are actions taken to minimize costs while maximizing benefits, and thus require explication of causes of loss and gain. Competent statistical practice thus integrates logic, context, and probability into scientific inference and decision using narratives filled with causality. This reality was seen and accounted for intuitively by the founders of modern statistics, but was not well recognized in the ensuing statistical theory (which focused instead on the causally inert properties of probability measures). Nonetheless, both statistical foundations and basic statistics can and should be taught using formal causal models. The causal view of statistical science fits within a broader information-processing framework which illuminates and unifies frequentist, Bayesian, and related probability-based foundations of statistics. Causality theory can thus be seen as a key component connecting computation to contextual information, not extra-statistical but instead essential for sound statistical training and applications.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

To Aid Scientific Inference, Emphasize Unconditional Compatibility Descriptions of Statistics

All scientific interpretations of statistical outputs depend on background (auxiliary) assumptions that are rarely delineated or explicitly interrogated. These include not only the usual modeling assumptions, but also deeper assumptions about the data-generating mechanism that are implicit in conventional statistical interpretations yet are unrealistic in most health, medical and social research. We provide arguments and methods for reinterpreting statistics such as P-values and interval estimates in unconditional terms, which describe compatibility of observations with an entire set of underlying assumptions, rather than with a narrow target hypothesis conditional on the assumptions. Emphasizing unconditional interpretations helps avoid overconfident and misleading inferences in light of uncertainties about the assumptions used to arrive at the statistical results. These include not only mathematical assumptions, but also those about absence of systematic errors, protocol violations, and data corruption. Unconditional descriptions introduce assumption uncertainty directly into the primary statistical interpretations of results, rather than leaving it for the discussion of limitations after presentation of conditional interpretations. The unconditional approach does not entail different methods or calculations, only different interpretation of the usual results. We view use of unconditional description as a vital component of effective statistical training and presentation. By interpreting statistical outputs in unconditional terms, researchers can avoid making overconfident statements based on statistical outputs. Instead, reports should emphasize the compatibility of results with a range of plausible explanations, including assumption violations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

There are natural scores: Full comment on Shafer, "Testing by betting: A strategy for statistical and scientific communication"

Shafer (2021) offers a betting perspective on statistical testing which may be useful for foundational debates, given that disputes over such testing continue to be intense. To be helpful for researchers, however, this perspective will need more elaboration using real examples in which (a) the betting score has a justification and interpretation in terms of study goals that distinguishes it from the uncountable mathematical possibilities, and (b) the assumptions in the sampling model are uncertain. On justification, Shafer says 'No one has made a convincing case for any particular choice' of a score derived from a P-value and then states that 'the choice is fundamentally arbitrary'. Yet some (but not most) scores can be motivated by study goals (e.g., information measurement; decision making). The one I have seen repeatedly in information statistics and data mining is the surprisal, logworth or S-value s = -log(p), where the log base determines the scale. The present comment explains the rationale for this choice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Interval Estimation for Messy Observational Data

We review some aspects of Bayesian and frequentist interval estimation, focusing first on their relative strengths and weaknesses when used in "clean" or "textbook" contexts. We then turn attention to observational-data situations which are "messy," where modeling that acknowledges the limitations of study design and data collection leads to nonidentifiability. We argue, via a series of examples, that Bayesian interval estimation is an attractive way to proceed in this context even for frequentists, because it can be supplied with a diagnostic in the form of a calibration-sensitivity simulation analysis. We illustrate the basis for this approach in a series of theoretical considerations, simulations and an application to a study of silica exposure and lung cancer.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Relaxation Penalties and Priors for Plausible Modeling of Nonidentified Bias Sources

In designed experiments and surveys, known laws or design feat ures provide checks on the most relevant aspects of a model and identify the target parameters. In contrast, in most observational studies in the health and social sciences, the primary study data do not identify and may not even bound target parameters. Discrepancies between target and analogous identified parameters (biases) are then of paramount concern, which forces a major shift in modeling strategies. Conventional approaches are based on conditional testing of equality constraints, which correspond to implausible point-mass priors. When these constraints are not identified by available data, however, no such testing is possible. In response, implausible constraints can be relaxed into penalty functions derived from plausible prior distributions. The resulting models can be fit within familiar full or partial likelihood frameworks. The absence of identification renders all analyses part of a sensitivity analysis. In this view, results from single models are merely examples of what might be plausibly inferred. Nonetheless, just one plausible inference may suffice to demonstrate inherent limitations of the data. Points are illustrated with misclassified data from a study of sudden infant death syndrome. Extensions to confounding, selection bias and more complex data structures are outlined.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access