BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Yudi Pawitan

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

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
stat.OTmath.STStatistics TheoryApplicationsMethodology

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

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

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A nonBayesian view of Hempel's paradox of the ravens

In Hempel's paradox of the ravens, seeing a red pencil is considered as supporting evidence that all ravens are black. Also known as the Paradox of Confirmation, the paradox and its many resolutions indicate that we cannot underestimate the logical and statistical elements needed in the assessment of evidence in support of a hypothesis. Most of the previous analyses of the paradox are within the Bayesian framework. These analyses and Hempel himself generally accept the paradoxical conclusion; it feels paradoxical supposedly because the amount of evidence is extremely small. Here I describe a nonBayesian analysis of various statistical models with an accompanying likelihood-based reasoning. The analysis shows that the paradox feels paradoxical because there are natural models where observing a red pencil has no relevance to the color of ravens. In general the value of the evidence depends crucially on the sampling scheme and on the assumption about the underlying parameters of the relevant model.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Defending the P-value

Attacks on the P-value are nothing new, but the recent attacks are increasingly more serious. They come from more mainstream sources, with widening targets such as a call to retire the significance testing altogether. While well meaning, I believe these attacks are nevertheless misdirected: Blaming the P-value for the naturally tentative trial-and-error process of scientific discoveries, and presuming that banning the P-value would make the process cleaner and less error-prone. However tentative, the skeptical scientists still have to form unambiguous opinions, proximately to move forward in their investigations and ultimately to present results to the wider community. With obvious reasons, they constantly need to balance between the false-positive and false-negative errors. How would banning the P-value or significance tests help in this balancing act? It seems trite to say that this balance will always depend on the relative costs or the trade-off between the errors. These costs are highly context specific, varying by area of applications or by stage of investigation. A calibrated but tunable knob, such as that given by the P-value, is needed for controlling this balance. This paper presents detailed arguments in support of the P-value.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Lottery paradox, DNA evidence and other stories: How to accept uncertain statements

I think we can agree that dealing with uncertainty is not easy. Probability is the main tool for dealing with uncertainty, and we know there are many probability-related puzzles and paradoxes. Here I describe a rather idiosyncratic selection that highlights the problem of accepting uncertain statements. Without going into a formal decision theory, there are simple intuitive rational bases for doing that, for instance based on high probability alone. The lottery paradox shows the logical problem of accepting uncertain statements based on high probability. The DNA evidence story is an example of the use probabilistic reasoning in court, where philosophical differences between the schools of inference -- the frequentist, Bayesian and likelihood schools -- lead to substantial differences in the quantification of evidence.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Analysis of 1:1 Matched Cohort Studies and Twin Studies, with Binary Exposures and Binary Outcomes

To improve confounder adjustments, observational studies are often matched on potential confounders. While matched case-control studies are common and well covered in the literature, our focus here is on matched cohort studies, which are less common and sparsely discussed in the literature. Matched data also arise naturally in twin studies, as a cohort of exposure-discordant twins can be viewed as being matched on a large number of potential confounders. The analysis of twin studies will be given special attention. We give an overview of various analysis methods for matched cohort studies with binary exposures and binary outcomes. In particular, our aim is to answer the following questions: (1) What are the target parameters in the common analysis methods? (2) What are the underlying assumptions in these methods? (3) How do the methods compare in terms of statistical power?

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access