Algorithmic inference

Algorithmic inference gathers new developments in the statistical inference methods made feasible by the powerful computing devices widely available to any data analyst. Cornerstones in this field are computational learning theory, granular computing, bioinformatics, and, long ago, structural probability (Fraser 1966). The main focus is on the algorithms which compute statistics rooting the study of a random phenomenon, along with the amount of data they must feed on to produce reliable results. This shifts the interest of mathematicians from the study of the distribution laws to the functional properties of the statistics, and the interest of computer scientists from the algorithms for processing data to the information they process.

. . . Algorithmic inference . . .

Concerning the identification of the parameters of a distribution law, the mature reader may recall lengthy disputes in the mid 20th century about the interpretation of their variability in terms of fiducial distribution(Fisher 1956), structural probabilities (Fraser 1966), priors/posteriors (Ramsey 1925), and so on. From an epistemology viewpoint, this entailed a companion dispute as to the nature of probability: is it a physical feature of phenomena to be described through random variables or a way of synthesizing data about a phenomenon? Opting for the latter, Fisher defines a fiducial distribution law of parameters of a given random variable that he deduces from a sample of its specifications. With this law he computes, for instance “the probability that μ (mean of a Gaussian variable – our note) is less than any assigned value, or the probability that it lies between any assigned values, or, in short, its probability distribution, in the light of the sample observed”.

Fisher fought hard to defend the difference and superiority of his notion of parameter distribution in comparison to analogous notions, such as Bayes’ posterior distribution, Fraser’s constructive probability and Neyman’s confidence intervals. For half a century, Neyman’s confidence intervals won out for all practical purposes, crediting the phenomenological nature of probability. With this perspective, when you deal with a Gaussian variable, its mean μ is fixed by the physical features of the phenomenon you are observing, where the observations are random operators, hence the observed values are specifications of a random sample. Because of their randomness, you may compute from the sample specific intervals containing the fixed μ with a given probability that you denote confidence.

Let X be a Gaussian variable[1] with parameters

and

and

a sample drawn from it. Working with statistics

${displaystyle S_{mu }=sum _{i=1}^{m}X_{i}}$

and

${displaystyle S_{sigma ^{2}}=sum _{i=1}^{m}(X_{i}-{overline {X}})^{2},{text{ where }}{overline {X}}={frac {S_{mu }}{m}}}$

is the sample mean, we recognize that

${displaystyle T={frac {S_{mu }-mmu }{sqrt {S_{sigma ^{2}}}}}{sqrt {frac {m-1}{m}}}={frac {{overline {X}}-mu }{sqrt {S_{sigma ^{2}}/(m(m-1))}}}}$

follows a Student’s t distribution(Wilks 1962) with parameter (degrees of freedom) m − 1, so that

${displaystyle f_{T}(t)={frac {Gamma (m/2)}{Gamma ((m-1)/2)}}{frac {1}{sqrt {pi (m-1)}}}left(1+{frac {t^{2}}{m-1}}right)^{m/2}.}$

Gauging T between two quantiles and inverting its expression as a function of

you obtain confidence intervals for

.

With the sample specification:

${displaystyle mathbf {x} ={7.14,6.3,3.9,6.46,0.2,2.94,4.14,4.69,6.02,1.58}}$

having size m = 10, you compute the statistics

and

, and obtain a 0.90 confidence interval for

with extremes (3.03, 5.65).

. . . Algorithmic inference . . .

. . . Algorithmic inference . . .