view updates

Distractions and amusements, with a sandwich and coffee.

listen; there's a hell of a good universe next door: let's go.
•
• go there
• more quotes

On March 14th celebrate Pi Day. Hug `\pi`—find a way to do it.

For those who favour `\tau=2\pi` will have to postpone celebrations until July 26th. That's what you get for thinking that `\pi` is wrong.

If you're not into details, you may opt to party on July 22nd, which is `\pi` approximation day (`\pi` ≈ 22/7). It's 20% more accurate that the official Pi day!

Finally, if you believe that `\pi = 3`, you should read why `\pi` is not equal to 3.

For the 2014 `\pi` day, two styles of posters are available: folded paths and frequency circles.

The folded paths show `\pi` on a path that maximizes adjacent prime digits and were created using a protein-folding algorithm.

The frequency circles colourfully depict the ratio of digits in groupings of 3 or 6. Oh, look, there's the Feynman Point!

The circles were pretty easy to make.

The paths were less easy to make. Without the use of our respectably large computer cluster to simulate the folding, I'd be on my `n`th calculatory battery.

*Appeal to intuition when designing with value judgments in mind.*

Figure clarity and concision are improved when the selection of shapes and colors is grounded in the Gestalt principles, which describe how we visually perceive and organize information.

The Gestalt principles are value free. For example, they tell us how we group objects but do not speak to any meaning that we might intuitively infer from visual characteristics.

This month, we discuss how appealing to such intuitions—related to shapes, colors and spatial orientation— can help us add information to a figure as well as anticipate and encourage useful interpretations.

Krzywinski, M. (2016) Points of View: Intuitive Design. Nature Methods 13:895.

*Constraining the magnitude of parameters of a model can control its complexity.*

This month we continue our discussion about model selection and evaluation and address how to choose a model that avoids both overfitting and underfitting.

Ideally, we want to avoid having either an underfitted model, which is usually a poor fit to the training data, or an overfitted model, which is a good fit to the training data but not to new data.

Regularization is a process that penalizes the magnitude of model parameters. This is done by not only minimizing the SSE, `\mathrm{SSE} = \sum_i (y_i - \hat{y}_i)^2 `, as is done normally in a fit, but adding to this minimized quantity the sum of the mode's squared parameters, `\mathrm{SSE} + \lambda \sum_i \hat{\beta}^2_i`.

Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2016) Points of Significance: Regularization. *Nature Methods* **13**:803-804.

Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2016) Points of Significance: Model Selection and Overfitting. *Nature Methods* **13**:703-704.

Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2016) Points of Significance: Classifier evaluation. *Nature Methods* **13**:603-604.

Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2016) Points of Significance: Logistic regression. *Nature Methods* **13**:541-542.

*With four parameters I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk. —John von Neumann.*

By increasing the complexity of a model, it is easy to make it fit to data perfectly. Does this mean that the model is perfectly suitable? No.

When a model has a relatively large number of parameters, it is likely to be influenced by the noise in the data, which varies across observations, as much as any underlying trend, which remains the same. Such a model is overfitted—it matches training data well but does not generalize to new observations.

We discuss the use of training, validation and testing data sets and how they can be used, with methods such as cross-validation, to avoid overfitting.

Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2016) Points of Significance: Model Selection and Overfitting. *Nature Methods* **13**:703-704.

Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2016) Points of Significance: Classifier evaluation. *Nature Methods* **13**:603-604.

Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2016) Points of Significance: Logistic regression. *Nature Methods* **13**:541-542.

*It is important to understand both what a classification metric expresses and what it hides.*

We examine various metrics use to assess the performance of a classifier. We show that a single metric is insufficient to capture performance—for any metric, a variety of scenarios yield the same value.

We also discuss ROC and AUC curves and how their interpretation changes based on class balance.

Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2016) Points of Significance: Classifier evaluation. *Nature Methods* **13**:603-604.

Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2016) Points of Significance: Logistic regression. *Nature Methods* **13**:541-542.

Today is the day and it's hardly an approximation. In fact, `22/7` is 20% more accurate of a representation of `\pi` than `3.14`!

Time to celebrate, graphically. This year I do so with perfect packing of circles that embody the approximation.

By warping the circle by 8% along one axis, we can create a shape whose ratio of circumference to diameter, taken as twice the average radius, is 22/7.

If you prefer something more accurate, check out art from previous `\pi` days: 2013 `\pi` Day and 2014 `\pi` Day, 2015 `\pi` Day, and 2016 `\pi` Day.

*Regression can be used on categorical responses to estimate probabilities and to classify.*

The next column in our series on regression deals with how to classify categorical data.

We show how linear regression can be used for classification and demonstrate that it can be unreliable in the presence of outliers. Using a logistic regression, which fits a linear model to the log odds ratio, improves robustness.

Logistic regression is solved numerically and in most cases, the maximum-likelihood estimates are unique and optimal. However, when the classes are perfectly separable, the numerical approach fails because there is an infinite number of solutions.

*Nature Methods* **13**:541-542.

Altman, N. & Krzywinski, M. (2016) Points of Significance: Regression diagnostics? *Nature Methods* **13**:385-386.

Altman, N. & Krzywinski, M. (2015) Points of Significance: Multiple Linear Regression *Nature Methods* **12**:1103-1104.

Altman, N. & Krzywinski, M. (2015) Points of significance: Simple Linear Regression *Nature Methods* **12**:999-1000.