Check out Seth Godin’s latest post: The uncanny valley.

If you find this photo disturbing, read Seth’s article to see why.

(832) 422-8646

Check out Seth Godin’s latest post: The uncanny valley.

If you find this photo disturbing, read Seth’s article to see why.

This post looks at computing *P*(*X* > *Y*) where *X* and *Y* are gamma random variables. These inequalities are central to the Thall-Wooten method of monitoring single-arm clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes. They also are central to adaptively randomized clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes.

When *X* and *Y* are gamma random variables *P*(*X* > *Y*) can be computed in terms of the incomplete beta function. Suppose *X* has shape α* _{X}* and scale β

P(X<Y) =P(B< β/(β_{X}+ β_{X}))_{Y}

where *B* is a beta(α* _{Y}*, α

For more details, see Numerical evaluation of gamma inequalities.

Previous posts on random inequalities:

On my other blog, Reproducible Ideas, I wrote two short posts about this morning about reproducibility.

The first post is a pointer to an interview with Roger Barga about Trident, a workflow system for reproducible oceanographic research using Microsoft’s workflow framework.

The second post highlights a paragraph from the interview explaining the idea of provenance in art and scientific research.

If you’ve ever been surprised by a program that printed some cryptic letter combination when you were expecting a number, you’ve run into an arithmetic exception. This article explains what caused your problem and what you may be able to do to fix it.

IEEE floating-point exceptions

Here’s a teaser. If `x`

is of type `float`

or `double`

, does the expression `(x == x)`

always evaluate to true? Are you certain?

Jeremy Freese had an interesting observation about interactions in a recent blog post, responding to a post by Andrew Gelman.

Anything that affects anyone affects different people differently.

Freese was making a point about statistical modeling, but his comment is worth thinking about more generally.

Here’s a summary of the blog posts I’ve written so far regarding PowerShell, grouped by topic.

Three posts announced **CodeProject articles** related to PowerShell: automated software builds, text reviews for software, and monitoring legacy code.

Three posts on **customizing the command prompt**: I, II, III.

Two posts on **XML sitemaps**: making a sitemap and filtering a sitemap.

Two **Unix-related** posts: cross-platform PowerShell and comparing PowerShell and bash.

The rest of the PowerShell posts I’ve written so far fall under **miscellaneous**.

- gotchas
- PolyMon
- here-strings
- readable paths
- uninitialized variables
- ASP.NET in PowerShell
- clipboard and command line
- launching PowerShell faster
- rounding and integer division
- one program to rule them all
- redirection and Unicode vs ASCII

Much to my surprise, the post on integer division in PowerShell has been one of the most popular.

It has always seemed odd to me that computer science refers to the number of operations necessary to execute an algorithm as the “complexity” of the algorithm. For example, an algorithm that takes *O*(*N*^{3}) operations is more complex than an algorithm that takes *O*(*N*^{2}) operations. The big-*O* analysis of algorithms is important, but “complexity” is the wrong name for it.

Software engineering is primarily concerned with *mental *complexity, the stress on your brain when working on a piece of code. Mental complexity might be unrelated to big-*O* complexity. They might even be antithetical: a slow, brute-force algorithm can be much easier to understand that a fast, subtle algorithm.

Of course mental complexity is subjective and hard to measure. The McCabe complexity metric, counting the number of independent paths through a chunk of code, is easy to compute and surprisingly helpful, even though it’s a crude approximation to what you’d really like to measure. (SourceMonitor is a handy program for computing McCabe complexity.)

Kolmogorov complexity is another surrogate for mental complexity. The Kolmogorov complexity of a problem is the length of the shortest computer program that could solve that problem. Kolmogorov complexity is difficult to define precisely — are we talking Java programs? Lisp programs? Turing machines? — and practically impossible to compute, but it’s a useful concept.

I like to think of a variation of Kolmogorov complexity even harder to define, the shortest program that “someone who programs like I do” could write to solve a problem. I started to describe this variation as “impractical,” but in some ways it’s very practical. It’s not practical to compute, but it’s a useful idealization to think about as long as you don’t take it too seriously.

Valen Johnson and I recently posted a working paper on a method for stopping trials of ineffective drugs earlier. For Bayesians, we argue that our method is more consistently Bayesian than other methods in common use. For frequentists, we show that our method has better frequentist operating characteristics than the most commonly used safety monitoring method.

The paper looks at binary and time-to-event trials. The results are most dramatic for the time-to-event analog of the Thall-Simon method, the Thall-Wooten method, as shown below.

This graph plots the probability of concluding that an experimental treatment is inferior when simulating from true mean survival times ranging from 2 to 12 months. The trial is designed to test a null hypothesis of 6 months mean survival against an alternative hypothesis of 8 months mean survival. When the true mean survival time is less than the alternative hypothesis of 8 months, the Bayes factor design is more likely to stop early. And when the true mean survival time is greater than the alternative hypothesis, the Bayes factor method is less likely to stop early.

The Bayes factor method also outperforms the Thall-Simon method for monitoring single-arm trials with binary outcomes. The Bayes factor method stops more often when it should and less often when it should not. However, the difference in operating characteristics is not as pronounced as in the time-to-event case.

The paper also compares the Bayes factor method to the frequentist mainstay, the Simon two-stage design. Because the Bayes factor method uses continuous monitoring, the method is able to use fewer patients while maintaining the type I and type II error rates of the Simon design as illustrated in the graph below.

The graph above plots the number of patients used in a trial testing a null hypothesis of a 0.2 response rate against an alternative of a 0.4 response rate. Design 8 is the Bayes factor method advocated in the paper. Designs 7a and 7b are variations on the Simon two-stage design. The horizontal axis gives the true probabilities of response. We simulated true probabilities of response varying from 0 to 1 in increments of 0.05. The vertical axis gives the number of patients treated before the trial was stopped. When the true probability of response is less than the alternative hypothesis, the Bayes factor method treats fewer patients. When the true probability of response is better than the alternative hypothesis, the Bayes factor method treats slightly more patients.

Design 7a is the strict interpretation of the Simon method: one interim look at the data and another analysis at the end of the trial. Design 7b is the Simon method as implemented in practice, stopping when the criteria for continuing cannot be met at the next analysis. (For example, if the design says to stop if there are three or fewer responses out of the first 15 patients, then the method would stop after the 12th patient if there have been no responses.) In either case, the Bayes factor method uses fewer patients. The rejection probability curves, not shown here, show that the Bayes factor method matches (actually, slightly improves upon) the type I and type II error rates for the Simon two-stage design.

* * *

When I hear people talking about something growing “exponentially” I think of the line from the Princess Bride where Inigo Montoya says

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

When most people say “exponential” they mean “really fast.” But that’s not what exponential growth means at all. Many things really *do* grow exponentially (for a while), but not everything that is “really fast” is exponential. Exponential growth can be amazingly fast, but it can also be excruciatingly slow. See Coping with exponential growth.

What does the redirection operator > in PowerShell do to text: leave it as Unicode or convert it to ASCII? The answer depends on whether the thing to the right of the `>`

operator is a file or a program.

Strings inside PowerShell are 16-bit Unicode, instances of .NET’s `System.String`

class. When you redirect the output to a file, the file receives Unicode text. As Bruce Payette says in his book Windows PowerShell in Action,

`myScript > file.txt`

is justsyntactic sugarfor`myScript | out-file -path file.txt`

and `out-file`

defaults to Unicode. The advantage of explicitly using `out-file`

is that you can then specify the output format using the `-encoding`

parameter. Possible encoding values include Unicode, UTF8, ASCII, and others.

If the thing on the right side of the redirection operator is a program rather than a file, the encoding is determined by the variable `$OutputEncoding`

. This variable defaults to ASCII encoding because most existing applications do not handle Unicode correctly. However, you can set this variable so PowerShell sends applications Unicode. See Jeffrey Snover’s blog post OuputEncoding to the rescue for details.

Of course if you’re passing strings between pieces of PowerShell code, everything says in Unicode.

Thanks to J_Tom_Moon_79 for suggesting a blog post on this topic.

Here’s a post from the blog Continuous everywhere but differentiable nowhere that explains some of the math that was used to design China’s water cube stadium.

I found this blog via Carnival of Mathematics #39.

Centuries ago, English communities would walk the little boys around the perimeter of their parish as a way of preserving land records. This was called “beating the bounds.” The idea was that by teaching the boundaries to someone young, the knowledge would be preserved for the lifespan of that person. Of course modern geological survey techniques make beating the bounds unnecessary.

Software development hasn’t reached the sophistication of geographic survey. Many software shops use a knowledge management system remarkably similar to beating the bounds. They hire a new developer to work on a new project. That developer will remain tied to that project for the rest of his or her career, like a serf tied to the land. The knowledge essential to maintaining that project resides only in the brain of its developer. There are no useful written records or reliable maps, just like medieval property boundaries.

**Update**: Here’s a response from Johanna Rothman about how to avoid medieval project management.

The idea behind SOA (service-oriented architecture) is that instead of developing monolithic applications, businesses should build “services,” typically web services, that do specific tasks. These services can then be combined in all kinds of useful ways.

This is not a new idea but the latest step in a progression of similar ideas. First subroutines, then libraries, then objects, then components, and now services. Each step offers better encapsulation than its predecessor and comes closer to delivering on the promise of making it possible to assemble software out of modular pieces.

**There are challenges to making all this work, and they are not primarily technical challenges**. As Gerald Weinberg says, “it’s always a people problem.”

If different groups are publishing services that combine to make the software someone uses, **who do they call when something breaks**? This is not an insurmountable problem, but it’s not trivial either. When someone can’t get their work done because software isn’t working and they call you for help, it’s hard to tell them that you just provide a “service” and that someone else is responsible for their problem. You may be telling them the truth, but it sounds like a run-around.

When you provide a service that another group uses, **how do you make sure they understand how to use it correctly**? Software can verify that the correct data types come in: this field should be a number, this one text between 5 and 12 characters long, etc. But software doesn’t assure that the caller understands what they should be passing your service to get back what they really want. This too is a people problem.

**How do you keep track of all the services you depend on**? Who is responsible for monitoring them?

Using third-party commercial services is probably simpler than using a service developed in a different part of your own company. With commercial service providers, there are contracts (technical and legal) with service level agreements. And since money changes hands, companies have structures in place to monitor such things. But when you’re using software developed by your counterpart three floors up in another department, there’s probably not as much infrastructure in place. And if there is, it’s easier to circumvent.

These problems all go under the heading of SOA governance. It’s useful to give complex things a name, but doing so can obscure complexity. You can’t make the problems go away by forming a SOA governance committee.

I’ve put a lot of effort into writing software for evaluating random inequality probabilities with beta distributions because such inequalities come up quite often in application. For example, beta inequalities are at the heart of the Thall-Simon method for monitoring single-arm trials and adaptively randomized trials with binary endpoints.

It’s not easy to evaluate *P*(*X* > *Y*) accurately and efficiently when *X* and *Y* are independent random variables. I’ve seen several attempts that were either inaccurate or slow, including a few attempts on my part. Efficiency is important because this calculation is often in the inner loop of a simulation study. Part of the difficulty is that the calculation depends on four parameters and no single algorithm will work well for all parameter combinations.

Let *g(a*, *b*, *c*, *d*) equal *P*(*X* > *Y*) where *X* ~ beta(*a*, *b*) and *Y* ~ beta(*c*, *d*). Then the function g has several symmetries.

*g*(*a*,*b*,*c*,*d*) = 1 –*g*(c,*d*,*a*,*b*)*g*(*a*,*b*,*c*,*d*) =*g*(*d*,*c*,*b*,*a*)*g*(*a*,*b*, c,*d*) =*g*(*d*,*b*,*c*,*a*)

The first two relations were published by W. R. Thompson in 1933, but as far as I know the third relation first appeared in this technical report in 2003.

For special values of the parameters, the function *g*(*a*, *b*, *c*, *d*) can be computed in closed form. Some of these special cases are when

- one of the four parameters is an integer
*a*+*b*+*c*+*d*= 1*a*+*b*=*c*+*d*= 1.

The function *g*(*a*, *b*, *c*, *d*) also satisfies several recurrence relations that make it possible to bootstrap the latter two special cases into more results. Define the beta function *B*(*a*, *b*) as Γ(*a*, *b*)/(Γ(*a*) Γ(*b*)) and define *h*(*a*, *b*, *c*, *d*) as *B*(*a*+*c*, *b*+*d*)/( *B*(*a*, *b*) *B*(*c*, *d*) ). Then the following recurrence relations hold.

*g*(*a*+1,*b*,*c*,*d*) =*g*(*a*,*b*,*c*,*d*) +*h*(*a*,*b*,*c*,*d*)/*a**g*(*a*,*b*+1,*c*,*d*) =*g*(*a*,*b*,*c*,*d*) –*h*(*a*,*b*,*c*,*d*)/*b**g*(*a*,*b*,*c*+1,*d*) =*g*(*a*,*b*,*c*,*d*) –*h*(*a*,*b*,*c*,*d*)/*c**g*(*a*,*b*,*c*,*d*+1) =*g*(*a*,*b*,*c*,*d*) +*h*(*a*,*b*,*c*,*d*)/*d*

For more information about beta inequalities, see these papers:

Previous posts on random inequalities:

The Decision Science News blog has an article highlighting a tool to illustrate how often experiments with significant *p*-values draw false conclusions. Here’s the web site they refer to.