legend) a clay figure brought to life by magic. • an automaton or robot. ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from Yiddish goylem, from Hebrew gōlem ‘shapeless mass.’
risen to life to protect us, can easily change into a destructive force. Therefore let us treat carefully that which is strong, just as we bow kindly and patiently to that which is weak.” Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel (1512–1609) From Breath of Bones: A Tale of the Golem
Animated by “truth” • Powerful • Blind to creator’s intent • Easy to misuse • Fictional Model • Made of...silicon? • Animated by “truth” • Hopefully powerful • Blind to creator’s intent • Easy to misuse • Not even false
Extends ordinary logic (true/false) to continuous plausibility • Computationally diﬃcult • Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to the rescue • Used to be controversial • Ronald Fisher: Bayesian analysis “must be wholly rejected.” Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827) Sir Harold Jeﬀreys (1891–1989) with Bertha Swirles, aka Lady Jeﬀreys (1903–1999)
is just limiting frequency • Uncertainty arises from sampling variation • Bayesian probability much more general • Probability is in the golem, not in the world • Coins are not random, but our ignorance makes them so Saturn as Galileo saw it
model • How do the data arise? • For W L W W W L W L W: • Some true proportion of water, p • Toss globe, probability p of observing W, 1–p of L • Each toss therefore independent of other tosses • Translate data story into probability statements
learning in small world, converts prior into posterior • Give your golem an information state, before the data: Here, an initial confidence in each possible value of p between zero and one • Condition on data to update information state: New confidence in each value of p, conditional on data
L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 2 W L W W W L W L W W n = 4 W L W W W L W L W confidence n = 5 W L W W W L W L W W prior p, proportion W plausibility
L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 2 W L W W W L W L W W n = 4 W L W W W L W L W confidence n = 5 W L W W W L W L W W prior posterior p, proportion W plausibility
L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 2 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 3 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 4 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 5 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 6 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 7 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 8 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 9 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W
L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 2 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 3 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 4 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 5 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 6 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 7 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 8 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 9 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W
L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 2 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 3 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 4 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 5 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 6 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 7 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 8 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 9 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W
L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 2 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 3 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 4 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 5 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 6 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 7 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 8 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 9 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W
L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 2 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 3 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 4 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 5 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 6 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 7 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 8 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 9 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W
golem assumes order irrelevant • All-at-once, one-at-a-time, shuﬄed order all give same posterior • Every posterior is a prior for next observation • Every prior is posterior of some other inference • Sample size automatically embodied in posterior 4."-- 803-%4 "/% -"3(& 803-%4 probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 1 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 2 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 3 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 4 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 5 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 6 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 7 W L W W W L W L W confidence probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 8 W L W W W L W L W probability of water 0 0.5 1 n = 9 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W proportion water 0 0.5 1 plausibility n = 0 W L W W W L W L W 'ĶĴłĿĲ Ɗƍ )PX B #BZFTJBO NPEFM MFBSOT &BDI UPTT PG UIF HMPCF QSPEVDFT BO PCTFSWBUJPO PG XBUFS 8 PS MBOE - ćF NPEFMT FTUJNBUF PG UIF QSP QPSUJPO PG XBUFS PO UIF HMPCF JT B QMBVTJCJMJUZ GPS FWFSZ QPTTJCMF WBMVF ćF MJOFT BOE DVSWFT JO UIJT ĕHVSF BSF UIFTF DPMMFDUJPOT PG QMBVTJCJMJUJFT *O FBDI QMPU B QSFWJPVT QMBVTJCJMJUJFT EBTIFE DVSWF BSF VQEBUFE JO MJHIU PG UIF MBUFTU
to a question in the form of a model “How plausible is each proportion of water, given these data?” • Golem must be supervised • Did the golem malfunction? • Does the golem’s answer make sense? • Does the question make sense? • Check sensitivity of answer to changes in assumptions
β 8 ∼ #JOPNJBM(/, Q) Q ∼ 6OJGPSN(, ) • Bayesian models are generative • Can be run forward to generate predictions or simulate date • Can be run in reverse to infer process from data
• No universally best way to evaluate adequacy of model-based predictions • No way to justify always using a threshold like 5% • Good predictive checks always depend upon purpose and imagination “It would be very nice to have a formal apparatus that gives us some ‘optimal’ way of recognizing unusual phenomena and inventing new classes of hypotheses [...]; but this remains an art for the creative human mind.” —E.T. Jaynes (1922–1998)
of approximation • Known to be wrong Regression • Descriptively accurate • Mechanistically wrong • General method of approximation • Taken too seriously
result in dampening • Damped fluctuations end up Gaussian • No information left, except mean and variance • Can’t infer process from distribution! • Epistemological perspective • Know only mean and variance • Then least surprising and most conservative (maximum entropy) distribution is Gaussian • Nature likes maximum entropy distributions
result in dampening • Damped fluctuations end up Gaussian • No information left, except mean and variance • Can’t infer process from distribution! • Epistemological perspective • Know only mean and variance • Then least surprising and most conservative (maximum entropy) distribution is Gaussian • Nature likes maximum entropy distributions
“General Linear Model”: t-test, single regression, multiple regression, ANOVA, ANCOVA, MANOVA, MANCOVA, yadda yadda yadda • All the same thing • Learn strategy, not procedure Willard Boepple
available predictors to model • “We controlled for...” • Almost always a bad idea • Adding variables creates confounds • Residual confounding • Overfitting
121 122 55 60 65 70 75 H M A = 7 123 124 125 126 127 60 65 70 75 H M A = 8 128 129 130 131 132 60 65 70 75 80 H M A = 9 133 134 135 136 137 65 70 75 80 H M A = 10
well • Conditioning on post-treatment variables can be very bad • Conditioning on pre-treatment can also be bad (colliders) • Good news! • Causal inference possible in observational settings • But requires good theory