An efficient new “Partial” randomized response model

ABSTRACT

In this article, a new “Partial” randomized response model has been proposed. Its properties are studied both theoretically and empirically. The proposed model is proved to be more efficient than the randomized response models studied by Eichhorn and Hayre (1983 Eichhorn, B.H., Hayre, L.S. (1983). Scrambled randomized response methods for obtaining sensitive quantitative dada. J. Stat. Plann. Inference. 7:307–316.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and the “Partial” randomized response model.     

On Galton's Change From “Reversion” to “Regression”

Galton's first work on regression probably led him to think of it as a unidirectional, genetic process, which he called “reversion.” A subsequent experiment on family heights made him realize that the phenomenon was symmetric and nongenetic. Galton then abandoned “reversion” in favor of “regression.” Final confirmation was provided through Dickson's mathematical analysis and Galton's examination of height data on brothers.     

On the comparison of Horvitz–Thompson and Murthy's sampling strategies for estimating finite population proportions in direct and randomized response surveys

We consider the problem of unbiased estimation of a finite population proportion and compare the relative efficiency of the unequal probability sampling strategies due to Horvitz and Thompson (1952 Horvitz, D.G., Thompson, D.J. (1952). A generalization of sampling without replacement. J Am Stat Assoc. 47:663–685.[Taylor &; Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Murthy (1957 Murthy, M.N. (1957). Ordered and unordered estimators in sampling without replacement. Sankhya 18:379–390. [Google Scholar]) under a super-population model. It is shown that the model expected variance is smaller for the Murthy's (1957 Murthy, M.N. (1957). Ordered and unordered estimators in sampling without replacement. Sankhya 18:379–390. [Google Scholar]) strategy both when these two sampling strategies are based on data obtained from (i) a direct survey, and (ii) a randomized response (RR) survey employing some RR technique following a general RR model.     

Discussion on the paper “On simulation and properties of the stable law” by L. Devroye and L. James

We congratulate the authors for the interesting paper. The reading has been really pleasant and instructive. We discuss briefly only some of the interesting results given in Devroye and James (Stat Methods Appl 2014) with particular attention to evolution problems. The contribution of the results collected in the paper is useful in a more wide class of applications in many areas of applied mathematics.     

Comment “On the role of data,statistics and decisions in a pandemic” by Jahn et al.

AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis - We comment the paper by Jahn et al. (On the role of data, statistics and decisions in a pandemic, 2022).     

Discussion of “On simulation and properties of the stable law” by L. Devroye and L. James

We contribute to the discussion of the paper by Devroye and James, by reviewing some of the most meaningful results that relate the unilateral stable distribution with the asymptotic behavior of the so-called Ewens-Pitman sampling model. Our focus is then on how these results have been exploited in the context of Bayesian nonparametric inference for species sampling problems.     

Response to the “letter to the editor”

First of all, the parameters involved in Chen and Hsu (1995) are unknown. For convenience, we discussed the two possibilities of the unknown parameter μ namely μ =M and μ M, separately. In other words, we do not known wheter μ = M or μ M. Therefore, we must estimate it before drawing any statistical conclusion about the index C_pmk, The conclusion should be applied only after th ehypothesis if μ = M is tested.     

Discussing the “big n problem”

When a large amount of spatial data is available computational and modeling challenges arise and they are often labeled as “big n problem”. In this work we present a brief review of the literature. Then we focus on two approaches, respectively based on stochastic partial differential equations and integrated nested Laplace approximation, and on the tapering of the spatial covariance matrix. The fitting and predictive abilities of using the two methods in conjunction with Kriging interpolation are compared in a simulation study.     

“Super-covariates”: Using predicted control group outcome as a covariate in randomized clinical trials

The power of randomized controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of a drug compared with a control group depends not just on how efficacious the drug is, but also on the variation in patients' outcomes. Adjusting for prognostic covariates during trial analysis can reduce this variation. For this reason, the primary statistical analysis of a clinical trial is often based on regression models that besides terms for treatment and some further terms (e.g., stratification factors used in the randomization scheme of the trial) also includes a baseline (pre-treatment) assessment of the primary outcome. We suggest to include a “super-covariate”—that is, a patient-specific prediction of the control group outcome—as a further covariate (but not as an offset). We train a prognostic model or ensembles of such models on the individual patient (or aggregate) data of other studies in similar patients, but not the new trial under analysis. This has the potential to use historical data to increase the power of clinical trials and avoids the concern of type I error inflation with Bayesian approaches, but in contrast to them has a greater benefit for larger sample sizes. It is important for prognostic models behind “super-covariates” to generalize well across different patient populations in order to similarly reduce unexplained variability whether the trial(s) to develop the model are identical to the new trial or not. In an example in neovascular age-related macular degeneration we saw efficiency gains from the use of a “super-covariate”.     

Understanding and Addressing the Unbounded “Likelihood” Problem

The joint probability density function, evaluated at the observed data, is commonly used as the likelihood function to compute maximum likelihood estimates. For some models, however, there exist paths in the parameter space along which this density-approximation likelihood goes to infinity and maximum likelihood estimation breaks down. In all applications, however, observed data are really discrete due to the round-off or grouping error of measurements. The “correct likelihood” based on interval censoring can eliminate the problem of an unbounded likelihood. This article categorizes the models leading to unbounded likelihoods into three groups and illustrates the density-approximation breakdown with specific examples. Although it is usually possible to infer how given data were rounded, when this is not possible, one must choose the width for interval censoring, so we study the effect of the round-off on estimation. We also give sufficient conditions for the joint density to provide the same maximum likelihood estimate as the correct likelihood, as the round-off error goes to zero.     

Weighing Evidence “Steampunk” Style via the Meta-Analyser

The funnel plot is a graphical visualization of summary data estimates from a meta-analysis, and is a useful tool for detecting departures from the standard modeling assumptions. Although perhaps not widely appreciated, a simple extension of the funnel plot can help to facilitate an intuitive interpretation of the mathematics underlying a meta-analysis at a more fundamental level, by equating it to determining the center of mass of a physical system. We used this analogy to explain the concepts of weighing evidence and of biased evidence to a young audience at the Cambridge Science Festival, without recourse to precise definitions or statistical formulas and with a little help from Sherlock Holmes! Following on from the science fair, we have developed an interactive web-application (named the Meta-Analyser) to bring these ideas to a wider audience. We envisage that our application will be a useful tool for researchers when interpreting their data. First, to facilitate a simple understanding of fixed and random effects modeling approaches; second, to assess the importance of outliers; and third, to show the impact of adjusting for small study bias. This final aim is realized by introducing a novel graphical interpretation of the well-known method of Egger regression.