Statisfaction

Statistics journals network

Posted in General, R, Statistics by Julyan Arbel on 16 April 2015
Statistical journals friendship (clic for SVG format)

Statistical journals friendship (clic for SVG format)

Xian blogged recently on the incoming RSS read paper: Statistical Modelling of Citation Exchange Between Statistics Journals, by Cristiano Varin, Manuela Cattelan and David Firth. Following the last JRSS B read paper by one of us! The data that are used in the paper (and can be downloaded here) are quite fascinating for us, academics fascinated by academic rankings, for better or for worse (ironic here). They consist in cross citations counts C = (C_{ij}) for 47 statistics journals (see list and abbreviations page 5): C_{ij} is the number of citations from articles published in journal j in 2010 to papers published in journal i in the 2001-2010 decade. The choice of the list of journals is discussed in the paper. Major journals missing include Bayesian Analysis (published from 2006), The Annals of Applied Statistics (published from 2007).

I looked at the ratio of Total Citations Received by Total Citations made. This is a super simple descriptive statistic which happen to look rather similar to Figure 4 which plots Export Scores from Stigler model (can’t say more about it, I haven’t read in detail). The top five is the same modulo the swap between Annals of Statistics and Biometrika. Of course a big difference is that the Cited/Citation ratio isn’t endowed with a measure of uncertainty (below, left is my making, right is Fig. 4 in the paper).

ratioexport-scores

I was surprised not to see a graph / network representation of the data in the paper. As it happens I wanted to try the gephi software for drawing graphs, used for instance by François Caron and Emily Fox in their sparse graphs paper. I got the above graph, where:

  • for the data, I used the citations matrix C renormalized by the total number of citations made, which I denote by \tilde C. This is a way to account for the size (number of papers published) of the journal. This is just a proxy though since the actual number of papers published by the journal is not available in the data. Without that correction, CSDA is way ahead of all the others.
  • the node size represents the Cited/Citing ratio
  • the edge width represents the renormalized \tilde C_{ij}. I’m unsure of what gephi does here, since it converts my directed graph into an undirected graph. I suppose that it displays only the largest of the two edges \tilde C_{ij} and \tilde C_{ji}.
  • for a better visibility I kept only the first decile of heaviest edges.
  • the clusters identified by four colors are modularity classes obtained by the Louvain method.

Some remarks

The two software journals included in the dataset are quite outliers:

  • the Journal of Statistical Software (JSS) is disconnected from the others, meaning it has no normalized citations \tilde C_{ij} in the first decile. Except from its self citations which are quite big and make it the 4th Impact Factor from the total list in 2010 (and apparently the first in 2015).
  • the largest \tilde C_{ij} is the self citations of the STATA Journal (StataJ).

Centrality:

  • CSDA is the most central journal in the sense of the highest (unweighted) degree.

Some further thoughts

All that is just for the fun of it. As mentioned by the authors, citation counts are heavy-tailed, meaning that just a few papers account for much of the citations of a journal while most of the papers account for few citations. As a matter of fact, the total of citations received is mostly driven by a few super-cited papers, and also is the Cited/Citations matrix \tilde C that I use throughout for building the graph. A reason one could put forward about why JRSS B makes it so well is the read papers: for instance, Spiegelhalter et al. (2002), DIC, received alone 11.9% of all JRSS B citations in 2010. Who’d bet the number of citation this new read paper (JRSS A though) will receive?

Bayesian classics

Posted in Statistics by Julyan Arbel on 17 March 2015
collegio

Collegio Carlo Alberto in a sunny day

This week I’ll start my Bayesian Statistics master’s course at the Collegio Carlo Alberto. I realized that some of last year students got PhD positions in prestigious US universities. So I thought that letting this year’s students have a first grasp of some great Bayesian papers wouldn’t do harm. The idea is that in addition to the course, the students will pick a paper from a list and present it (or rather part of it) to the others and to me. Which will let them earn some extra points for the final exam mark. It’s in the spirit of Xian’s Reading Classics Seminar (his list here).

I’ve made up the list below, inspired by two textbooks references lists and biased by personal tastes: Xian’s Bayesian Choice and Peter Hoff’s First Course in Bayesian Statistical Methods. See the pdf list and zipped folder for papers. Comments on the list are much welcome!

Julyan

PS: reference n°1 isn’t a joke!

Tagged with:

momentify R package at BAYSM14

Posted in General, R, Seminar/Conference, Statistics by Julyan Arbel on 20 September 2014

I presented an arxived paper of my postdoc at the big success Young Bayesian Conference in Vienna. The big picture of the talk is simple: there are situations in Bayesian nonparametrics where you don’t know how to sample from the posterior distribution, but you can only compute posterior expectations (so-called marginal methods). So e.g. you cannot provide credible intervals. But sometimes all the moments of the posterior distribution are available as posterior expectations. So morally, you should be able to say more about the posterior distribution than just reporting the posterior mean. To be more specific, we consider a hazard (h) mixture model

\displaystyle h(t)=\int k(t;y)\mu(dy)

where k is a kernel, and the mixing distribution \mu is random and discrete (Bayesian nonparametric approach).

We consider the survival function S which is recovered from the hazard rate h by the transform

\displaystyle S(t)=\exp\Big(-\int_0^t h(s)ds\Big)

and some possibly censored survival data having survival S. Then it turns out that all the posterior moments of the survival curve S(t) evaluated at any time t can be computed.

The nice trick of the paper is to use the representation of a distribution in a [Jacobi polynomial] basis where the coefficients are linear combinations of the moments. So one can sample from [an approximation of] the posterior, and with a posterior sample we can do everything! Including credible intervals.

I’ve wrapped up the few lines of code in an R package called momentify (not on CRAN). With a sequence of moments of a random variable supported on [0,1] as an input, the package does two things:

  • evaluates the approximate density
  • samples from it

A package example for a mixture of beta and 2 to 7 moments gives that result:

mixture

Using R in LaTeX with knitr and RStudio

Posted in Geek, LaTeX, R by Julyan Arbel on 28 February 2013

Hi,

I presented today at INSEE R user group (FL\tauR) how to use knitr (Sweave evolution) for writing \LaTeX documents which are self contained with respect to the source code: your data changed? No big deal, just compile your .Rnw file again and you are done with an updated version of your paper![Ctrl+Shift+I] is easy. Some benefits with respect to having two separate .R and .tex files: it is integrated in a single software (RStudio), you can call variables in your text with the \Sexpr{} command. The slow speed at compilation is no more a real matter as one can put “cache=TRUE” in code chunk options not to reevaluate unchanged chunks, which fastens things.

I share the (brief) slides below. They won’t help much those who already use knitr, but they give the first steps for those who would like to give it a try.

Dropbox Space Race

Posted in Geek, General by Julyan Arbel on 1 December 2012

https://www.dropbox.com/static/images/spacerace2012/rocket-splash.jpg

Hi,

additionally to the referral program (you refer a new user, you win an extra .5 Go), the Dropbox Space Race will give you 3 Go extra space (for 2 years) if you register with your email from a competing university. The best schools will get more space. Here are the 100 top schools. Com’ on, there is no french school in the 100 top !

Thanks Nicolas for the info.

Tagged with: , ,

Next R meeting in Paris INSEE: ggplot2 and parallel computing

Posted in R by Julyan Arbel on 12 June 2012

Hi,
our group of R users from INSEE, aka FL\tauR, meets monthly in Paris. Next meeting is on Wed 13 (tomorrow), 1-2 pm, room 539 (an ID is needed to come in,  map to access INSEE \tauR), about ggplot2 and parallel computing. Since the first meeting in February, presentations have included hot topics like webscrapping, C in R, RStudio, SQLite databases or cartography (most of them in French). See you there!

Priors on probability measures

Posted in Seminar/Conference, Statistics by Julyan Arbel on 24 April 2012

Hi,

for the next GTB meeting at Crest, 3rd May, I will present Peter Orbanz‘ work on Projective limit random probabilities on Polish spaces. It will follow my previous presentation about Bayesian nonparametrics on the Dirichlet process.

The article provides a means of constructing any arbitrary prior distribution on the set of probability measures by working on its finite-dimensional marginals. The vanilla example is the Dirichlet process, which is characterized by its Dirichlet distribution marginals on any finite partition of the space (other examples are the Normalized Inverse Gaussian Process and the Pòlya Tree). The figure above illustrates the projective property of the marginals.

Peter will speak at ISBA 2012 Kyoto session : On the uses of random probabilities in Bayesian inference, along with Ramses Mena and Antonio Lijoi. I’ll write more about that later on!

A world without referees

Posted in General by Julyan Arbel on 10 April 2012

 

In an invited contribution to the last ISBA Bulletin, Larry Wasserman discusses the  “almost 350 years old” peer review system (paper). Have a look on it, it’s quite thought provoking!

We should think about our field like a marketplace of ideas. Everyone should be free to put their ideas out there. There is no need for referees. Good ideas will get recognized, used and cited. Bad ideas will be ignored. This process will be imperfect. But is it really better to have two or three people decide the fate of your work?

A world where you put your work on arXiv or on your web page, where you save so much time, isn’t it tempting?

Rochebrune Workshop 2012

Posted in General, Seminar/Conference by Julyan Arbel on 9 April 2012

Hey,
Last week I attended Rochebrune workshop for the second time. The genius organizers’ idea (Liliane Bel and Eric Parent from AgroParisTech, Jean-Jacques Borreux from Liège University) is to mix ski, stats and spirits (mostly Genepi and Chartreuse) around a remote alpine chalet on top of Megève ski resort.

Most of the attendees are (young) Bayesians working in applied fields, ranging from biology, ecology and epidemiology, to meteorology and climatology. We had great talks about fishes, trees, birds (Joël’s busard cendré), drugs and avalanches. More methodological talks dealt with extremes, Bayesian model averaging, and simulations: variational approximations, INLA, ABC, and MCMC in general. We had a tutorial about JAGS and WinBugs/OpenBugs as well (and how to interface them with R using rjags and R2WinBUGS). I presented my work about Multidimensional covariate dependent Dirichlet processes (all presentations here).

In addition to the 10 talks per day, a sacrosanct 5-hour skiing slot was reserved in the afternoon, with lessons from crazy Mégevan instructors. They must be really good: Pierre, don’t be afraid, I jumped and felt significantly less than two years ago. Have a Chartreuse, cheers!

Valentine Day and lonely people in France

Posted in Dataset, General by Julyan Arbel on 14 February 2012

Insee published recently a paper (in French), well in line with the Valentine Day, which characterizes people living alone or in couple by socio-professional category, along with the data.

Between 1990 and 2008 (two population surveys), the proportion of people living alone mostly increased for people under 60. After 60, 38% of women live alone, for only 17% of men,  because women are married to older men, and live longer than them, in average. See that proportion by age:

Spatially, there is a kind of South/North opposition. During the working life, lonely people live in the South (left), while lonely retired people live in the North (right), with an exception for Île-de-France (Paris) with a high proportion whatever the age:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers

%d bloggers like this: