<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The AstroStat Slog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog</link>
	<description>Weaving together Astronomy+Statistics+Computer Science+Engineering+Intrumentation, far beyond the growing borders</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>The Big Picture</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/the-big-picture/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/the-big-picture/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>vlk</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Astro]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Imaging]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Stars]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Big Picture]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Boston Globe]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[EIT]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hinode]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[SoHO]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Solar]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[STEREO]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Sun]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[TRACE]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[XRT]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=1044</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our hometown rag (the <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/">Boston Globe</a>) runs an occasional series of photo collections that highlight news stories called The Big Picture.  This week, they take a look at the Sun: <a href="http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/10/the_sun.html">http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/10/the_sun.html</a>

The pictures come from space and ground observatories, from SoHO, TRACE, Hinode, STEREO, etc.  Goes without saying, the images are stunning, and some are even animated.  The real kicker is that images such as these are being acquired by the hundreds, every hour upon the hour, 24/7/365.25 .  It is like sipping from a firehose.   Nobody can sit there and look at them all, so who knows what we are missing out on.  Can statistics help?  Can we automate a statistically robust "interestingness" criterion to filter the data stream that&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/the-big-picture/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/the-big-picture/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Off the line</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/off-the-line/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/off-the-line/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:09:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Cultural]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Misc]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[picture]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[smile]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[website]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=1032</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I do not like to be serious. papers...papers...papers. Off from papers for bridging two, allow me to talk about something relevant to the cultural difference between astronomers and statisticians. I hope this could generate a series of comments. :)&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/off-the-line/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/off-the-line/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[tutorial] multispectral imaging, a case study</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/multispectral-imaging-a-case-study/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/multispectral-imaging-a-case-study/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Algorithms]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Cultural]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Data Processing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Fitting]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Imaging]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Methods]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quotes]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Spectral]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Stat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Uncertainty]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[arXiv]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[matrix]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Mona Lisa]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[multispectral]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[noise]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[signal processing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[signal processing magazine]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Tutorial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=1018</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Without signal processing courses, the following equation should be awfully familiar to astronomers of photometry and handling data:
$$c_k=\int_\Lambda l(\lambda) r(\lambda) f_k(\lambda) \alpha(\lambda) d\lambda +n_k$$
Terms are in order, camera response (c_k), light source (l), spectral radiance by l (r), filter (f), sensitivity (&#945;), and noise (n_k), where &#923; indicates the range of the spectrum in which the camera is sensitive. 
Or simplified to $$c_k=\int_\Lambda \phi_k (\lambda) r(\lambda) d\lambda +n_k$$ 
where &#966; 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 &#945; has multiple layers, not a simple closed function of &#955; in astronomical photometry. 
Or $$c_k=\Theta r +n$$ 
Inverting &#920; and finding a reconstruction operator such that r=inv(&#920;)c_k  leads spectral reconstruction although &#920; is, in general, not a square matrix. Otherwise, approach from indirect reconstruction.&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/multispectral-imaging-a-case-study/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/multispectral-imaging-a-case-study/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When you register</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/maintenance-issue/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/maintenance-issue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:55:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Meta]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Misc]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[maintenance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[registration]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[scam]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=1020</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I bet there are various scams. One of them is automatic user registration. This blog requires a registration for contributing free of approval comments unless one does not put many web links. Recently, there were frequent  anonymous user registrations. What I mean by anonymous is that I don't see their names or part of identities (for example, someone uses initials of their names in their email accounts or uses email accounts from their affiliations). This slog is open to anyone who is interested in AstroStatistics, although not many are currently active. Upon your request, this can be changed very simply and you immediately start writing your ideas about AstroStatistics. However, I must restrict those scams from now on. Please, provide me a small information about you if you do&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/maintenance-issue/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/maintenance-issue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[Book] The Grammar of Graphics</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/book-the-grammar-of-graphics/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/book-the-grammar-of-graphics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:55:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Cultural]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quotes]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[book]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[F. Frankel]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[grammar]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[graphics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[IIC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Leland Wilkinson]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[review]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=260</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[All of a sudden, partially owing to a thought provoking talk about visualization by <a href="http://iic.harvard.edu/people/felicef/">Felice Frankel at IIC</a>, I recollected a book, <a href=" http://www.spss.com/research/wilkinson/TheGrammarOfGraphics/GOG.html">The Grammar of Graphics</a> by Leland Wilkinson (2nd Ed. - I partially read the 1st ed. and felt little of use several years ago because there seemed no link for visualization of data from astronomy.)&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/book-the-grammar-of-graphics/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/book-the-grammar-of-graphics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Quote on Model</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/a-quote-on-model/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/a-quote-on-model/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 05:31:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Astro]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Cultural]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Jargon]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Methods]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quotes]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Stat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[error model]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Friedman]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hastie]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[model]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[structural model]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Tibshirani]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=984</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In order to understand a learning procedure statistically it is necessary to identify two important aspects: its structural model and its error model. The former is most important since it determines the function space of the approximator, thereby characterizing the class of functions or hypothesis that can be accurately approximated with it. The error model specifies the distribution of random departures of sampled data from the structural model.&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/a-quote-on-model/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/a-quote-on-model/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>survey and design of experiments</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/survey-and-design-of-experiments/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/survey-and-design-of-experiments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Astro]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[CHASC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Cultural]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Data Processing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Jargon]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Methods]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Misc]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Stat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[213]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[AAS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Alanna Connors]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[catalog]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[census]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[detection]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[experimental design]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Long Beach]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[special session]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[SPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[survey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[People of experience would say very differently and wisely against what I'm going to discuss now. This post only combines two small cross sections of each branch of two trees, astronomy and statistics.&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/survey-and-design-of-experiments/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/survey-and-design-of-experiments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Thanks to Henrietta Leavitt&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/thanks-to-henrietta-leavitt/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/thanks-to-henrietta-leavitt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:56:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>vlk</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Astro]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Fitting]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Stars]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Timing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[2008]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[cepheid]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[CfA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Henrietta Leavitt]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Henrietta Swan Leavitt]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[November]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[period-luminosity]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[symposium]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=927</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The CfA is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the discovery of the Cepheid period-luminosity relation on Nov 6, 2008.  See <a href="http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/events/2008/leavitt/">http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/events/2008/leavitt/</a> for details.

[Update 10/03] For a nice introduction to the story of Henrietta Swan Leavitt, listen to this Perimeter Institute talk by George Johnson: <a href="http://pirsa.org/06050003/">http://pirsa.org/06050003/</a> <div class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/thanks-to-henrietta-leavitt/">Continue reading</a></div>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/thanks-to-henrietta-leavitt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Make3D</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/make3d/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/make3d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:45:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Algorithms]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Data Processing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Imaging]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Misc]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[make3D]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[solar images]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[virtual]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=915</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At least two images for reconstructing a 3D scene is a conventional belief. Yet, we do know that our eyes reconstruct 3D scenes from various single snap shot images, just with one picture. Based on our perception and learning ability or our internal pattern recognition ability, a few groups of people have been trying to reconstruct a 3D image from one still image picture. Luckily you can test such progress,  reconstructing a 3D scene from a single still image at <a href="http://make3d.stanford.edu/">Make3D</a> (a click brings you to Make3D at Stanford).&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/make3d/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/make3d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[Q] Objectivity and Frequentist Statistics</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/q-objectivity-frequentist/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/q-objectivity-frequentist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>vlk</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Bad AstroStat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Fitting]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Frequentist]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Stat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Uncertainty]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bayesian]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Ping Zhao]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[question for statisticians]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[weighted mean]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=901</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is there an objective method to combine measurements of the same quantity obtained with different instruments?

Suppose you have a set of N1 measurements obtained with one detector, and another set of N2 measurements obtained with a second detector.  And let's say you wanted something as simple as an estimate of the mean of the quantity (say the intensity) being measured.  Let us further stipulate that the measurement errors of each of the points is similar in magnitude and neither instrument displays any odd behavior.  How does one combine the two datasets without appealing to subjective biases about the reliability or otherwise of the two instruments?&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/q-objectivity-frequentist/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/q-objectivity-frequentist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>There and back again</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/xkcd-height/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/xkcd-height/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:43:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>vlk</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Misc]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quotes]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[cartoon]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[comic]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[edge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[height]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[universe]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[XKCD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The absolutely phenomenal webcomic XKCD hits a home run again, this time <a href="http://xkcd.com/482/">sketching out the spatial structure of the Universe</a> all the way from here to The Edge .. in log scale.&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/xkcd-height/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/xkcd-height/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quintessential Contributions</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/quintessential-contributions/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/quintessential-contributions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:49:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Bayesian]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Cultural]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Frequentist]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quotes]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Stat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Gosset]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Harvard]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[S.M.Stigler]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[student t]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[symposium]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To my personal thoughts, the history of astronomy is more interesting than the history of statistics. This may change tomorrow. Harvard statistics department (chair Xiao-Li Meng) organizes a symposium titled
 Quintessential Contributions: 
Celebrating Major Birthdays of Statistical Ideas and Their Inventors 
When: Saturday, September 27, 2008, 9:45 AM - 5:00 PM
Where: Radcliffe Gymnasium, 18 Mason Street, Cambridge, MA&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/quintessential-contributions/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/quintessential-contributions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Classification and Clustering</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/classification-and-clusterin/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/classification-and-clusterin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:48:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Algorithms]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Astro]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bad AstroStat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Cultural]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Data Processing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Frequentist]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Jargon]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Methods]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Stat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[arXiv]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[black box]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[book]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[catalog]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Classification]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[clustering]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[haste]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[outliers]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[R]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Robert Serfling]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[semi-supervised learning]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[survey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=747</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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.&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/classification-and-clusterin/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/classification-and-clusterin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A History of Markov Chain Monte Carlo</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/mcmc-historyo/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/mcmc-historyo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:11:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Algorithms]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bad AstroStat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bayesian]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Cultural]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Data Processing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Imaging]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[MC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[MCMC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Methods]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quotes]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Stat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[arXiv]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[BUGS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[data augmentation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[EM]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Gibbs sampling]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hasting]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Metropolis]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[reversible jump]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[simulated annealing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=768</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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:&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/mcmc-historyo/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/mcmc-historyo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BUGS</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/bugs/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/bugs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:34:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Algorithms]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bayesian]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Data Processing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Languages]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[MCMC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Methods]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[openBUGS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[PyBUGS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Python]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[R]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[toolbox]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[winBUGS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Astronomers tend to think in Bayesian way, but their Bayesian implementation is very limited. OpenBUGS, WinBUGS, GeoBUGS (BUGS for geostatistics; for example, modeling spatial distribution), R2WinBUGS (R BUGS wrapper) or PyBUGS (Python BUGS wrapper) could boost their Bayesian eagerness. Oh, by the way, BUGS stands for Bayesian inference Using Gibbs Sampling.&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/bugs/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/bugs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[Book] pattern recognition and machine learning</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/pml/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/pml/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:20:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Algorithms]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Astro]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Cultural]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Data Processing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Jargon]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bishop]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[catalog]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[machine learning]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[pattern recognition]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[PCML]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[SPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[survey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A nice book by Christopher Bishop.
While I was reading abstracts and papers from astro-ph, I saw many applications of algorithms from pattern recognition and machine learning (PRML). The frequency will increase as large scale survey projects numerate, where recommending a good textbook or a reference in the field seems timely.&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/pml/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/pml/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>appealing eyes == powerful method</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/appealing-eyes-powerful-method/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/appealing-eyes-powerful-method/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Bad AstroStat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Cultural]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Data Processing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Jargon]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[emprical data analysis]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[eyeballing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[powerful test]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=604</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To claim results are powerful statistically, astronomers highly rely on eyeballing techniques (need apprenticeship to acquire skills but look subjective to me without such training). Some cases, I know actual statistical tests to support or to dissuade those claims. Hence, I believe astronomers are well aware of those statistical tests. I guess they are afraid that those statistics may reject their claims or are not powerful enough in numeric metrics. Instead, they spend efforts to make graphics more appealing.&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/appealing-eyes-powerful-method/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/appealing-eyes-powerful-method/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Parametric Bootstrap vs. Nonparametric Bootstrap</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/parametric-bootstrap-vs-nonparametric-bootstrap/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/parametric-bootstrap-vs-nonparametric-bootstrap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Fitting]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Frequentist]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Methods]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quotes]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Spectral]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[bias correction]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[bootstrap]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FAKEIT]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Prof. Babu]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[XSPEC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=680</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The following footnotes are from one of <a href="http://www.stat.psu.edu/~babu">Prof. Babu's</a> slides but I do not recall which occasion he presented the content.
-- In the XSPEC packages, the parametric bootstrap is command FAKEIT, which makes Monte Carlo simulation of specified spectral model.
-- XSPEC does not provide a nonparametric bootstrap capability.&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/parametric-bootstrap-vs-nonparametric-bootstrap/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/parametric-bootstrap-vs-nonparametric-bootstrap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Gaussianity?</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/why-gaussianity/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/why-gaussianity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:15:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Cultural]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Data Processing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Fitting]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Frequentist]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Methods]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Physics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quotes]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Stat]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Uncertainty]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[arXiv]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[CLT]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Gaussianity]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Henry Poincare]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[IEEE]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[normal]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[signal processing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[signal processing magazine]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Why]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=637</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Physicists believe that the Gaussian law has been proved in mathematics while mathematicians think that it was experimentally established in physics -- Henri Poincare&#8230;  <span class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/why-gaussianity/">Continue reading</a></span>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/why-gaussianity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>LHC First Beam</title>
		<link>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/lhc-first-beam/</link>
		<comments>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/lhc-first-beam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:38:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hlee</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Physics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[First Beam]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[LHC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/?p=661</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[10:00am local time, Sept. 10th, 2008
As the first light from Fermi or GLAST, LHC First Beam is also a big moment for particle physicists. Find more from <a href="http://lhc-first-beam.web.cern.ch/lhc-first-beam/Welcome.html">http://lhc-first-beam.web.cern.ch/lhc-first-beam/Welcome.html.</a> <div class="pgee-read-more"><a href="http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/lhc-first-beam/">Continue reading</a></div>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://groundtruth.info/AstroStat/slog/2008/lhc-first-beam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
