A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?

Predicting historic temperatures based on tree rings, ice cores, and other natural proxies is a difficult endeavor. The relationship between proxies and temperature is weak and the number of proxies is far larger than the number of target data points. Furthermore, the data contain complex spatial and temporal dependence structures which are not easily captured with simple models. In this paper, we assess the reliability of such reconstructions and their statistical significance against various null models. We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago. We propose our own reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere average annual land temperature over the last millennium, assess its reliability, and compare it to those from the climate science literature. Our model provides a similar reconstruction but has much wider standard errors, reflecting the weak signal and large uncertainty encountered in this setting.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/10-AOAS398 the Annals of Applied Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aoas/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

A Hierarchical Bayesian Model of Pitch Framing

Since the advent of high-resolution pitch tracking data (PITCHf/x), many in the sabermetrics community have attempted to quantify a Major League Baseball catcher's ability to "frame" a pitch (i.e. increase the chance that a pitch is called as a strike). Especially in the last three years, there has been an explosion of interest in the "art of pitch framing" in the popular press as well as signs that teams are considering framing when making roster decisions. We introduce a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate each umpire's probability of calling a strike, adjusting for pitch participants, pitch location, and contextual information like the count. Using our model, we can estimate each catcher's effect on an umpire's chance of calling a strike.We are then able to translate these estimated effects into average runs saved across a season. We also introduce a new metric, analogous to Jensen, Shirley, and Wyner's Spatially Aggregate Fielding Evaluation metric, which provides a more honest assessment of the impact of framing

Comment: Boosting Algorithms: Regularization, Prediction and Model Fitting

The authors are doing the readers of Statistical Science a true service with a well-written and up-to-date overview of boosting that originated with the seminal algorithms of Freund and Schapire. Equally, we are grateful for high-level software that will permit a larger readership to experiment with, or simply apply, boosting-inspired model fitting. The authors show us a world of methodology that illustrates how a fundamental innovation can penetrate every nook and cranny of statistical thinking and practice. They introduce the reader to one particular interpretation of boosting and then give a display of its potential with extensions from classification (where it all started) to least squares, exponential family models, survival analysis, to base-learners other than trees such as smoothing splines, to degrees of freedom and regularization, and to fascinating recent work in model selection. The uninitiated reader will find that the authors did a nice job of presenting a certain coherent and useful interpretation of boosting. The other reader, though, who has watched the business of boosting for a while, may have quibbles with the authors over details of the historic record and, more importantly, over their optimism about the current state of theoretical knowledge. In fact, as much as ``the statistical view'' has proven fruitful, it has also resulted in some ideas about why boosting works that may be misconceived, and in some recommendations that may be misguided. [arXiv:0804.2752]Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/07-STS242B the Statistical Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling of Hitting Performance in Baseball

We have developed a sophisticated statistical model for predicting the hitting performance of Major League baseball players. The Bayesian paradigm provides a principled method for balancing past performance with crucial covariates, such as player age and position. We share information across time and across players by using mixture distributions to control shrinkage for improved accuracy. We compare the performance of our model to current sabermetric methods on a held-out season (2006), and discuss both successes and limitations

Boosted Classification Trees and Class Probability/Quantile Estimation

The standard by which binary classifiers are usually judged, misclassification error, assumes equal costs of misclassifying the two classes or, equivalently, classifying at the 1/2 quantile of the conditional class probability function P[y = 1|x]. Boosted classification trees are known to perform quite well for such problems. In this article we consider the use of standard, off-the-shelf boosting for two more general problems: 1) classification with unequal costs or, equivalently, classification at quantiles other than 1/2, and 2) estimation of the conditional class probability function P[y = 1|x]. We first examine whether the latter problem, estimation of P[y = 1|x], can be solved with Logit- Boost, and with AdaBoost when combined with a natural link function. The answer is negative: both approaches are often ineffective because they overfit P[y = 1|x] even though they perform well as classifiers. A major negative point of the present article is the disconnect between class probability estimation and classification. Next we consider the practice of over/under-sampling of the two classes. We present an algorithm that uses AdaBoost in conjunction with Over/Under-Sampling and Jittering of the data (“JOUS-Boost”). This algorithm is simple, yet successful, and it preserves the advantage of relative protection against overfitting, but for arbitrary misclassification costs and, equivalently, arbitrary quantile boundaries. We then use collections of classifiers obtained from a grid of quantiles to form estimators of class probabilities. The estimates of the class probabilities compare favorably to those obtained by a variety of methods across both simulated and real data sets

Entropy-Based Strategies for Multi-Bracket Pools

Much work in the March Madness literature has discussed how to estimate the probability that any one team beats any other team. There has been strikingly little work, however, on what to do with these win probabilities. Hence we pose the multi-brackets problem: given these probabilities, what is the best way to submit a set of $n$ brackets to a March Madness bracket challenge? This is an extremely difficult question, so we begin with a simpler situation. In particular, we compare various sets of $n$ randomly sampled brackets, subject to different entropy ranges or levels of chalkiness (rougly, chalkier brackets feature fewer upsets). We learn three lessons. First, the observed NCAA tournament is a "typical" bracket with a certain "right" amount of entropy (roughly, a "right" amount of upsets), not a chalky bracket. Second, to maximize the expected score of a set of $n$ randomly sampled brackets, we should be successively less chalky as the number of submitted brackets increases. Third, to maximize the probability of winning a bracket challenge against a field of opposing brackets, we should tailor the chalkiness of our brackets to the chalkiness of our opponents' brackets