## Posts

## Comments

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on Is there a way to preview comments? · 2021-05-10T10:52:29.767Z · LW · GW

Nice Thanks, now My only issue is this: I would prefer pure markdown for writing posts and the new WYSIWYG for commenting. But after playing with it it seems that it remember your settings for posts, so you can switch back before clicking create post, and then you are golden :). Thanks a lot

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on a visual explanation of Bayesian updating · 2021-05-10T09:10:46.149Z · LW · GW

I am well aware that nobody asked for this, but here is the proof that the posterior is for the beta-bernoulli model.

We start with Bayes Theorem:

Then we plug in the definition for the Bernoulli likelihood and Beta prior:

Let's collect the powers in the numerator, and things that does not depend on in the denominator

Here comes the conjugation shenanigans. If you squint, the top of the distribution looks like the top of a Beta distribution:

Let's continue the shenanigans, since the numerator looks like the numerator of a beta distribution, we know that it would be a proper beta distribution if we changed the denominator like this:

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on a visual explanation of Bayesian updating · 2021-05-10T08:56:18.714Z · LW · GW

fixed

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on a visual explanation of Bayesian updating · 2021-05-09T06:22:34.727Z · LW · GW

Mine was the same, I became a bayesian statetisian 4 years ago. I gave a talk about Bayesian Statistics and this figure was what made it click to most students (including myself), so i wanted to share it

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on a visual explanation of Bayesian updating · 2021-05-09T06:19:11.730Z · LW · GW

The order does not matter, you can see that by focusing on which is always equal to , you can also see it from the conjugation rule where you end with no matter the order.

If you wanted the order to matter you could down weight earlier shots or widen the uncertainty between the updates, so previous posterior becomes a slightly wider prior to capture the extra uncertainty from the passage of time.

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on Prediction and Calibration - Part 1 · 2021-05-08T19:18:28.904Z · LW · GW

you may be disappointed, unless you make 40+ predictions per week it will be hard to compare weekly drift, the Bernoulli distribution has a much higher variance compared to the normal distribution, so the uncertainty estimate of the calibration is correspondingly wide (high uncertainty of data -> high uncertainty of regression parameters). My post 3 will be a hierarchical model which may suite your needs better but it will maybe be a month before I get around to making that model.

If there are many people like you then we may try to make a hackish model that down weights older predictions as they are less predictive of your current calibration than newer predictions, but I will have to think long and hard to make than into a full Bayesian model, so I am making no promises

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on What do the reported levels of protection offered by various vaccines mean? · 2021-05-05T21:36:58.431Z · LW · GW

It almost means 3. It means the Vaccine Efficacy is 95%

is calculated this way:

where are the number of sick people in the vaccine group and is the number of sick people in the control group

So if 100 got sick in the control group and 5 in the vaccine group then:

So it's a 95% reduction in your probability of getting COVID :)

Note that the number reported is sometimes the mode and sometimes the mean of the distribution, but beta/binomial distributions are skewed so the mean is often lower than the mode. I have written a blogpost where I redo the Pfizer analysis

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on Prediction and Calibration - Part 1 · 2021-05-03T15:17:17.702Z · LW · GW

I have tried to add a paragraph about this, because I think it's a good point, and it's unlikely that you were the only one who got confused about this, Next weekend I will finish part 2 where I make a model that can track calibration independent of prediction, and in that model the 60% 61/100 will have a better posterior of the calibration parameter than then 60% 100/100, though the likelihood of the 100/100 will of course still be highest.

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on Prediction and Calibration - Part 1 · 2021-05-03T05:00:32.315Z · LW · GW

I have gotten 10 votes, the sum of which is 4, all of you guys who disliked the post can you please comment so I know why?

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on Prediction and Calibration - Part 1 · 2021-05-03T04:57:54.161Z · LW · GW

you mean the N'th root of 2 right?, which is what I called the null predictor and divided Scott predictions by in the code:

```
random_predictor = 0.5 ** len(y)
```

which is equivalent to where is the total number of predictions

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on Prediction and Calibration - Part 1 · 2021-05-03T04:51:28.892Z · LW · GW

You are absolutely right, any framework that punishes you for being right would be bad, my point is that increasing your calibration helps a surprising amount and is much more achievable than "just git good" which is required for improving prediction.

I will try to put your point into the draft when I am off work , thanks

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on Prediction and Calibration - Part 1 · 2021-05-02T19:52:22.617Z · LW · GW

Thanks, also thanks for pointing out that I had written a few places instead of $p(y\mid\theta), since everything is the bernoulli distribution I have changed everything to

**Jan Christian Refsgaard (jan-christian-refsgaard)**on Prediction and Calibration - Part 1 · 2021-05-02T09:58:44.405Z · LW · GW

I have not been consistent with my probability notation, I sometimes use upper case P and sometimes lower case p, in future posts I will try to use the same notation as Andrew Gelman, which is for things that are probabilities (numbers) such as and for distributions such as . However since this is my first post, I am afraid that 'editing it' will waist the moderators time as they will have to read it again to check for trolling, what is the proper course of action?