TCRUG will be having a meeting TONIGHT (2/16) at 5:30 PM. We will meet in ROOM 29 in Willey Hall. Willey Hall is located on the West Bank of the Minneapolis campus. See the Google map at http://goo.gl/tnRnU. Erik Iverson will be giving a talk ...

R news and tutorials contributed by (552) R bloggers

TCRUG will be having a meeting TONIGHT (2/16) at 5:30 PM. We will meet in ROOM 29 in Willey Hall. Willey Hall is located on the West Bank of the Minneapolis campus. See the Google map at http://goo.gl/tnRnU. Erik Iverson will be giving a talk ...

The paper “Exact sampling for intractable probability distributions via a Bernoulli factory” by James Flegal and Radu Herbei got posted on arXiv without me noticing, presumably because it came out just between Larry Brown’s conference in Philadelphia and my skiing vacations! I became aware of it only yesterday and find it quite interesting in that

An ‘Og reader. Emmanuel Charpentier, sent me the following email about model choice: I read with great interest your critique of Peter Congdon’s 2006 paper (CSDA, 50(2):346-357) proposing a method of estimation of posterior model probabilities based on improper distributions for parameters not present in the model inder examination, as well as a more general

As we were completing our arXiv summary about ABC model choice, we were helpfully pointed to a recent CRiSM tech. report by X. Didelot, R. Everitt, A. Johansen and D. Lawson on Likelihood-free estimation of model evidence. This paper is quite related to our study of the performances of the ABC approximation to the Bayes

This may sound like a paradoxical title given my recent production in this area of ABC approximations, especially after the disputes with Alan Templeton, but I have come to the conclusion that ABC approximations to the Bayes factor are not to be trusted. When working one afternoon in Park City with Jean-Michel and Natesh Pillai

Doug Rivers, professor of Political Sciences in Stanford, kindly sent me this email yesterday night: The 2nd displayed equation in section 2.1.2 on p. 44 is garbled (it might be interpreted as saying that U and X have the same distribution). I think you intended: And indeed we should have stated the implicit convention that