<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Books - a boring title</title>
	<atom:link href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/</link>
	<description>Weaving together Astronomy+Statistics+Computer Science+Engineering+Intrumentation, far beyond the growing borders</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:49:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Simon Vaughan</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-294</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Vaughan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:27:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-294</guid>
		<description>Hyunsook, I agree entirely about the usefulness of a data repository. It would be really nice to have a range of data types (spectra, images, time series - from optical, X-ray, radio etc.) in common formats, from real observations of different sources, that can be used to demonstrate with or experiment on. Most of our 'textbook' examples are rather ancient!
There are a few websites I use, but the range is rather limited. For time series, there is:

 - "A Sample of Astronomical Time Series" - &lt;a href="http://xweb.nrl.navy.mil/timeseries/timeseries.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://xweb.nrl.navy.mil/timeseries/timeseries.html&lt;/a&gt;

The Astrostatistics summer school at PSU maintains a page with some datasets

 - "Astronomical datasets for statistical analysis" - &lt;a href="http://astrostatistics.psu.edu/datasets/" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://astrostatistics.psu.edu/datasets/&lt;/a&gt;

The UK Swift data centre hosts a light curve repository where you can download ASCII time series for virtually any GRB observed with the Swift/XRT 

-  "Swift/XRT GRB lightcurve repository" &lt;a href="http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt_curves/" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt_curves/&lt;/a&gt; 

I wonder if any AstroStat readers know of any more like this...?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hyunsook, I agree entirely about the usefulness of a data repository. It would be really nice to have a range of data types (spectra, images, time series - from optical, X-ray, radio etc.) in common formats, from real observations of different sources, that can be used to demonstrate with or experiment on. Most of our &#8216;textbook&#8217; examples are rather ancient!<br />
There are a few websites I use, but the range is rather limited. For time series, there is:</p>
<p> - &#8220;A Sample of Astronomical Time Series&#8221; - <a href="http://xweb.nrl.navy.mil/timeseries/timeseries.html" rel="nofollow">http://xweb.nrl.navy.mil/timeseries/timeseries.html</a></p>
<p>The Astrostatistics summer school at PSU maintains a page with some datasets</p>
<p> - &#8220;Astronomical datasets for statistical analysis&#8221; - <a href="http://astrostatistics.psu.edu/datasets/" rel="nofollow">http://astrostatistics.psu.edu/datasets/</a></p>
<p>The UK Swift data centre hosts a light curve repository where you can download ASCII time series for virtually any GRB observed with the Swift/XRT </p>
<p>-  &#8220;Swift/XRT GRB lightcurve repository&#8221; <a href="http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt_curves/" rel="nofollow">http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt_curves/</a> </p>
<p>I wonder if any AstroStat readers know of any more like this&#8230;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brianISU</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-293</link>
		<dc:creator>brianISU</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:48:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-293</guid>
		<description>Dear hlee,

this website might be what you are looking for.  I believe it is ran through NASA and University of Maryland.  I used a data set here to try and understand the lifetime distribution of stars from supernova data as a class project.  There seems to be many interesting data sets to glance through.  I hope this helps.

http://adc.gsfc.nasa.gov/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear hlee,</p>
<p>this website might be what you are looking for.  I believe it is ran through NASA and University of Maryland.  I used a data set here to try and understand the lifetime distribution of stars from supernova data as a class project.  There seems to be many interesting data sets to glance through.  I hope this helps.</p>
<p><a href="http://adc.gsfc.nasa.gov/" rel="nofollow">http://adc.gsfc.nasa.gov/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hlee</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-292</link>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-292</guid>
		<description>Dear Simon,

For high energy astrophysicists, books for particle physicists seem very useful and highly related.  I'll get the book later and read/scan. Thanks in bunch!

I wish there are some astronomical data depositories where no data reduction is required but one can apply various statistical analyses to the data in the depository to learn and compare statistical methods. I always have troubles in data reduction because I'm lack in hand-on instructions of reducing data sets that are nowadays available from websites and virtual observatory. I see dozens of thousand points from an archive but papers reduce them to a few hundreds or thousands prior to statistical analysis. These reduced data sets are not available to a person like me. 

Once these reduced data sets from various astronomy divisions are available and put into a common depository; it'll be useful for teaching statistics and data analysis to young astronomy students while exposing them various fields of astronomy. Also, it'll lead up-to-date astrostatistics textbooks to be written so that there's no need for astronomers to rely on books published 4-5 decades ago.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Simon,</p>
<p>For high energy astrophysicists, books for particle physicists seem very useful and highly related.  I&#8217;ll get the book later and read/scan. Thanks in bunch!</p>
<p>I wish there are some astronomical data depositories where no data reduction is required but one can apply various statistical analyses to the data in the depository to learn and compare statistical methods. I always have troubles in data reduction because I&#8217;m lack in hand-on instructions of reducing data sets that are nowadays available from websites and virtual observatory. I see dozens of thousand points from an archive but papers reduce them to a few hundreds or thousands prior to statistical analysis. These reduced data sets are not available to a person like me. </p>
<p>Once these reduced data sets from various astronomy divisions are available and put into a common depository; it&#8217;ll be useful for teaching statistics and data analysis to young astronomy students while exposing them various fields of astronomy. Also, it&#8217;ll lead up-to-date astrostatistics textbooks to be written so that there&#8217;s no need for astronomers to rely on books published 4-5 decades ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon Vaughan</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-280</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Vaughan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:42:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-280</guid>
		<description>Following Vinay's and Hyunsook's posts: there's a second edition of 'Statistical Methods in Experimental Physics' (Eadie et al. 1971) with improve typesetting but most of the same material. (The original looks *very* dated because of the typesetting.) It is by only one of the original authors - F. James. 

There's also a nice book 'Statistical Data Analysis' by Glen Cowan that covers a lot of the same material, but is again aimed at particle physicists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following Vinay&#8217;s and Hyunsook&#8217;s posts: there&#8217;s a second edition of &#8216;Statistical Methods in Experimental Physics&#8217; (Eadie et al. 1971) with improve typesetting but most of the same material. (The original looks *very* dated because of the typesetting.) It is by only one of the original authors - F. James. </p>
<p>There&#8217;s also a nice book &#8216;Statistical Data Analysis&#8217; by Glen Cowan that covers a lot of the same material, but is again aimed at particle physicists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vlk</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-170</link>
		<dc:creator>vlk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-170</guid>
		<description>Wow, is that the original description of the eponymous Eddington Bias?!  Fascinating to see it worked out.  Astonishing to see it cited only 85 times.  Astronomers, mark this for future reference [sic]:  Eddington, A.S., 1913, MNRAS, 73, 359

I have always looked upon it as a realization of Poisson statistics, but I notice that the treatment is in the Gaussian regime, and is quite general.  It strikes me that it should work perfectly well in other situations, e.g., to non-parametrically deconvolve moderate resolution grating spectra, such as those from EUVE/*W or Chandra/LETG.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, is that the original description of the eponymous Eddington Bias?!  Fascinating to see it worked out.  Astonishing to see it cited only 85 times.  Astronomers, mark this for future reference [sic]:  Eddington, A.S., 1913, MNRAS, 73, 359</p>
<p>I have always looked upon it as a realization of Poisson statistics, but I notice that the treatment is in the Gaussian regime, and is quite general.  It strikes me that it should work perfectly well in other situations, e.g., to non-parametrically deconvolve moderate resolution grating spectra, such as those from EUVE/*W or Chandra/LETG.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mauro</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-169</link>
		<dc:creator>Mauro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:05:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-169</guid>
		<description>For the shrinkage estimator do you refer to this paper 
&lt;a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913MNRAS..73..359E" rel="nofollow"&gt;On a formula for correcting statistics for the effects of a known error of observation&lt;/a&gt; ? If yes, this estimator is widely used in the Eddington book.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the shrinkage estimator do you refer to this paper<br />
<a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913MNRAS..73..359E" rel="nofollow">On a formula for correcting statistics for the effects of a known error of observation</a> ? If yes, this estimator is widely used in the Eddington book.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TomLoredo</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-162</link>
		<dc:creator>TomLoredo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:15:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-162</guid>
		<description>To clarify re:  &lt;em&gt;Statistical Astronomy&lt;/em&gt;, it is a classic worth knowing about, not so much for general statistical analysis of data, but for &lt;em&gt;statistical modeling of astronomical populations&lt;/em&gt;.  For example, it's the classic reference for the so-called fundamental equation for star counts (perhaps Trumpler and Weaver gave it that name).

Mauro's mention of Eddington is interesting in another respect:  I don't know if it's covered in his 1914 book, but by that time he had written papers that introduced something like a shrinkage estimator---decades before Stein!  This might make a neat paper for someone interested in the history of statistics, since shrinkage estimation is one of the key developments of 20th century statistics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To clarify re:  <em>Statistical Astronomy</em>, it is a classic worth knowing about, not so much for general statistical analysis of data, but for <em>statistical modeling of astronomical populations</em>.  For example, it&#8217;s the classic reference for the so-called fundamental equation for star counts (perhaps Trumpler and Weaver gave it that name).</p>
<p>Mauro&#8217;s mention of Eddington is interesting in another respect:  I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s covered in his 1914 book, but by that time he had written papers that introduced something like a shrinkage estimator&#8212;decades before Stein!  This might make a neat paper for someone interested in the history of statistics, since shrinkage estimation is one of the key developments of 20th century statistics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mauro</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-161</link>
		<dc:creator>Mauro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-161</guid>
		<description>There are other two very "old" books "Lehrbuch der stellarstatistik" by E. von der Pahlen, F. Gondolatsch, L. Hufnagel, 1937, and "Stellar movements and the structure of the universe" by A.S. Eddington 1914. The two books are not useful for modern astronomy but they are a trace of what astronomers have do with statistics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are other two very &#8220;old&#8221; books &#8220;Lehrbuch der stellarstatistik&#8221; by E. von der Pahlen, F. Gondolatsch, L. Hufnagel, 1937, and &#8220;Stellar movements and the structure of the universe&#8221; by A.S. Eddington 1914. The two books are not useful for modern astronomy but they are a trace of what astronomers have do with statistics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hlee</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-160</link>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-160</guid>
		<description>Well..I spent 5 minutes or so in the library to scan the book. Statistical Astronomy, because of its age, needs a title makeover, like "Statistical methods for gaussian astronomical data without computer." I'm very spoiled with modern tools so as to say that the techniques the book describes are not much discussed in statistics. Statistics evolved a lot over the years and is moving forward quickly. The book seems to rely heavily on gaussianity and small sample. Also, the astronomical examples seem to be already implemented in astronomical tools because I never confronted such examples last year, although I learned Jacobians and spherical coordinate representations from an old professor more than 10 years ago). Very likely I got a wrong impression and prejudice due to the fact that the library copy received no one's touch ever since it was purchased more than 40 years ago. However, I'm very grateful to you that I learn there has been a quite long history in astrostatistics. 

There have been statistics references for astronomers according to their statistical needs, not lack of references.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well..I spent 5 minutes or so in the library to scan the book. Statistical Astronomy, because of its age, needs a title makeover, like &#8220;Statistical methods for gaussian astronomical data without computer.&#8221; I&#8217;m very spoiled with modern tools so as to say that the techniques the book describes are not much discussed in statistics. Statistics evolved a lot over the years and is moving forward quickly. The book seems to rely heavily on gaussianity and small sample. Also, the astronomical examples seem to be already implemented in astronomical tools because I never confronted such examples last year, although I learned Jacobians and spherical coordinate representations from an old professor more than 10 years ago). Very likely I got a wrong impression and prejudice due to the fact that the library copy received no one&#8217;s touch ever since it was purchased more than 40 years ago. However, I&#8217;m very grateful to you that I learn there has been a quite long history in astrostatistics. </p>
<p>There have been statistics references for astronomers according to their statistical needs, not lack of references.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mauro</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-159</link>
		<dc:creator>Mauro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:51:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-159</guid>
		<description>Very interesting post.
I suggest another "old" book: Statistical Astronomy, by R.J. Trumpler, H.F. Weaver, 1962, Dover.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting post.<br />
I suggest another &#8220;old&#8221; book: Statistical Astronomy, by R.J. Trumpler, H.F. Weaver, 1962, Dover.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hlee</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-156</link>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:41:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-156</guid>
		<description>I must see the book to lift my prejudice then. It seems that the second edition was published after 35 years. Thanks!

[After spending 30 minutes in the library] It's a great book! I like to keep it near me for a quick reference. One book has many. However, I become skeptical at "one of triumvirs." If so, my posting is useless. My impression is that the book could overwhelm young astronomers and drive them off from statistics. I am glad I didn't know the book when I was studying astronomy. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must see the book to lift my prejudice then. It seems that the second edition was published after 35 years. Thanks!</p>
<p>[After spending 30 minutes in the library] It&#8217;s a great book! I like to keep it near me for a quick reference. One book has many. However, I become skeptical at &#8220;one of triumvirs.&#8221; If so, my posting is useless. My impression is that the book could overwhelm young astronomers and drive them off from statistics. I am glad I didn&#8217;t know the book when I was studying astronomy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vlk</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/comment-page-1/#comment-155</link>
		<dc:creator>vlk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/books-a-boring-title/#comment-155</guid>
		<description>A very nice and useful post, Hyunsook.
In the interests of completeness, I should mention the third of the triumvirs that astronomers have generally relied on in the past, in addition to Bevington and NumRec: Statistical Methods in Experimental Physics, by Eadie et al. (1971).  Peter Freeman swears by it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very nice and useful post, Hyunsook.<br />
In the interests of completeness, I should mention the third of the triumvirs that astronomers have generally relied on in the past, in addition to Bevington and NumRec: Statistical Methods in Experimental Physics, by Eadie et al. (1971).  Peter Freeman swears by it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
