Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userFrequentism and Bayesianism: A Python-driven Primer
109
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
Jake VanderPlas
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
This paper presents a brief, semi-technical comparison of the essential features of the frequentist and Bayesian approaches to statistical inference, with several illustrative examples implemented in Python. The differences between frequentism and Bayesianism fundamentally stem from differing definitions of probability, a philosophical divide which leads to distinct approaches to the solution of statistical problems as well as contrasting ways of asking and answering questions about unknown parameters. After an example-driven discussion of these differences, we briefly compare several leading Python statistical packages which implement frequentist inference using classical methods and Bayesian inference using Markov Chain Monte Carlo.
rate research
Read More
Computing has revolutionized the biological sciences over the past several decades, such that virtually all contemporary research in the biosciences utilizes computer programs. The computational advances have come on many fronts, spurred by fundamental developments in hardware, software, and algorithms. These advances have influenced, and even engendered, a phenomenal array of bioscience fields, including molecular evolution and bioinformatics; genome-, proteome-, transcriptome- and metabolome-wide experimental studies; structural genomics; and atomistic simulations of cellular-scale molecular assemblies as large as ribosomes and intact viruses. In short, much of post-genomic biology is increasingly becoming a form of computational biology. The ability to design and write computer programs is among the most indispensable skills that a modern researcher can cultivate. Python has become a popular programming language in the biosciences, largely because (i) its straightforward semantics and clean syntax make it a readily accessible first language; (ii) it is expressive and well-suited to object-oriented programming, as well as other modern paradigms; and (iii) the many available libraries and third-party toolkits extend the functionality of the core language into virtually every biological domain (sequence and structure analyses, phylogenomics, workflow management systems, etc.). This primer offers a basic introduction to coding, via Python, and it includes concrete examples and exercises to illustrate the languages usage and capabilities; the main text culminates with a final project in structural bioinformatics. A suite of Supplemental Chapters is also provided. Starting with basic concepts, such as that of a variable, the Chapters methodically advance the reader to the point of writing a graphical user interface to compute the Hamming distance between two DNA sequences.
The Bayesian approach to quantum mechanics of Caves, Fuchs and Schack is presented. Its conjunction of realism about physics along with anti-realism about much of the structure of quantum theory is elaborated; and the position defended from common objections: that it is solipsist; that it is too instrumentalist; that it cannot deal with Wigners friend scenarios. Three more substantive problems are raised: Can a reasonable ontology be found for the approach? Can it account for explanation in quantum theory? Are subjective probabilities on their own adequate in the quantum domain? The first question is answered in the affirmative, drawing on elements from Nancy Cartwrights philosophy of science. The second two are not: it is argued that these present outstanding difficulties for the project. A quantum Bayesian version of Moores paradox is developed to illustrate difficulties with the subjectivist account of pure state assignments.
The lately developed part of Quantum Bayesianism named QBism has been proclaimed by its authors a powerful interpretation of Quantum Physics. This article presents analysis of some aspects of QBism. The considered examples show inconsistencies in some basic statements of the discussed interpretation. In particular, the main quantum mechanical conundrum of measurement and the observer is, contrary to the claims, not resolved within the framework of QBism. The conclusion is made that the basic tenets of QBism as applied in Physics are unsubstantiated.
We present the first public version (v0.2) of the open-source and community-developed Python package, Astropy. This package provides core astronomy-related functionality to the community, including support for domain-specific file formats such as Flexible Image Transport System (FITS) files, Virtual Observatory (VO) tables, and common ASCII table formats, unit and physical quantity
The finite sensitivity of instruments or detection methods means that data sets in many areas of astronomy, for example cosmological or exoplanet surveys, are necessarily systematically incomplete. Such data sets, where the population being investigated is of unknown size and only partially represented in the data, are called truncated in the statistical literature. Truncation can be accounted for through a relatively straightforward modification to the model being fitted in many circumstances, provided that the model can be extended to describe the population of undetected sources. Here I examine the problem of regression using truncated data in general terms, and use a simple example to show the impact of selecting a subset of potential data on the dependent variable, on the independent variable, and on a second dependent variable that is correlated with the variable of interest. Special circumstances in which selection effects are ignorable are noted. I also comment on computational strategies for performing regression with truncated data, as an extension of methods that have become popular for the non-truncated case, and provide some general recommendations.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
