The AstroStat Slog

Without signal processing courses, the following equation should be awfully familiar to astronomers of photometry and handling data:

Terms are in order, camera response (c_k), light source (l), spectral radiance by l (r), filter (f), sensitivity (α), and noise (n_k), where Λ indicates the range of the spectrum in which the camera is sensitive.
Or simplified to
where φ denotes the combined illuminant and the spectral sensitivity of the k-th channel, which goes by augmented spectral sensitivity. Well, we can skip spectral radiance r, though. Unfortunately, the sensitivity α has multiple layers, not a simple closed function of λ in astronomical photometry.
Or
Inverting Θ and finding a reconstruction operator such that r=inv(Θ)c_k leads spectral reconstruction although Θ is, in general, not a square matrix. Otherwise, approach from indirect reconstruction. Continue reading ‘[tutorial] multispectral imaging, a case study’ »

Another deduced conclusion from reading preprints listed in arxiv/astro-ph is that astronomers tend to confuse classification and clustering and to mix up methodologies. They tend to think any algorithms from classification or clustering analysis serve their purpose since both analysis algorithms, no matter what, look like a black box. I mean a black box as in neural network, which is one of classification algorithms. Continue reading ‘Classification and Clustering’ »

I’ve been joking about the astronomers’ fashion in writing Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Frequently, MCMC was represented by Monte Carlo Markov Chain in astronomical journals. I was curious about the history of this new creation. Overall, I thought it would be worth to learn more about the history of MCMC and this paper was up in arxiv: Continue reading ‘A History of Markov Chain Monte Carlo’ »

Physicists believe that the Gaussian law has been proved in mathematics while mathematicians think that it was experimentally established in physics — Henri Poincare

Continue reading ‘Why Gaussianity?’ »

The problem with data analysis is of course that it is a performing art. It is not something you easily write a paper on; rather, it is something you do. And so it is difficult to publish.

quoted from this conversation Continue reading ‘A Conversation with Peter Huber’ »

I didn’t realize this post was sitting for a month during which I almost neglected the slog. As if great books about probability and information theory for statisticians and engineers exist, I believe there are great statistical physics books for physicists. On the other hand, relatively less exist that introduce one subject to the other kind audience. In this regard, I thought the lecture note can be useful.

[arxiv:physics.data-an:0808.0012]
Lectures on Probability, Entropy, and Statistical Physics by Ariel Caticha
Abstract:

Continue reading ‘A lecture note of great utility’ »

Astronomers confront with various censored and truncated data. Often these types of data are called after famous scientists who generalized them, like Eddington bias. When these censored or truncated data become the subject of study in statistics, instead of naming them, statisticians try to model them so that the uncertainty can be quantified. This area is called survival analysis. If your library has The American Statistician subscription and you are an astronomer handles censored or truncated data sets, this primer would be useful for briefly conceptualizing statistics jargon in survival analysis and for characterizing uncertainties residing in your data. Continue reading ‘Survival Analysis: A Primer’ »

What if R. A. Fisher was hired by the Royal Observatory in spite that his interest was biology and agriculture, or W. S. Gosset^[1] instead of brewery? An article by E.L. Lehmann made me think this what if. If so, astronomers could have handled errors better than now. Continue reading ‘On the history and use of some standard statistical models’ »

1. Gosset’s pen name was Student, from which the name, Student-t in t-distribution or t-test was spawned.[↩]

Now it’s time for me to write my own astrostat papers instead of spending time for sieving them from [arXiv]. It has been an irresistible temptation scanning daily [arXiv] preprints to look for astronomy and sometimes statistics papers that 1. adopt statistics, 2. contain statistically challenging problems, 3. could be improved by more rigorous statistical applications, 4. look like abusing statistics, 5. may inspire statisticians by the data sets, or 6. might be useful for astronomers’ advancement in the data analysis. The temptation grew too much to be handled. The amount of papers belong to the above selection criteria seems to grow as my understanding widens. Also the mesh gets loose and starts to show holes. Continue reading ‘Discontinuation of weekly [arXiv] series’ »

This is my last [ArXiv] series. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 3rd week, June 2008’ »

As Prof. Speed said, PCA is prevalent in astronomy, particularly this week. Furthermore, a paper explicitly discusses R, a popular statistics package. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 2nd week, June 2008’ »

Despite no statistic related discussion, a paper comparing XSPEC and ISIS, spectral analysis open source applications might bring high energy astrophysicists’ interests this week. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 1st week, June 2008’ »

Eight astro-ph papers and two statistics paper are listed this week. One statistics paper discusses detecting filaments and the other talks about maximum likelihood estimation of satellite images (clouds). Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 4th week, May 2008’ »

Not many this week, but there’s a great read. Continue reading ‘[ArXiv] 3rd week, May 2008’ »

Earlier this year, Peter Edmonds showed me a press release that the Chandra folks were, at the time, considering putting out describing the possible identification of a Type Ia Supernova progenitor. What appeared to be an accreting white dwarf binary system could be discerned in 4-year old observations, coincident with the location of a supernova that went off in November 2007 (SN2007on). An amazing discovery, but there is a hitch.

And it is a statistical hitch, and involves two otherwise highly reliable and oft used methods giving contradictory answers at nearly the same significance level! Does this mean that the chances are actually 50-50? Really, we need a bona fide statistician to take a look and point out the errors of our ways.. Continue reading ‘Did they, or didn’t they?’ »