Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Alarmed-Bluejay-9459 t1_j0s1n55 wrote

This is unsurprising, most programmers don’t know how floating point works or how different algorithm implementations affect numerical stability.

11

bildramer t1_j0stzmo wrote

Programmers, especially programmers of statistics software/packages, usually take numerical stability into account, and put recommendations in the documentation. E.g. Numpy and Scipy have log1p, exp1m, logsumexp and such for stability reasons. R mentions it often iirc. It's the researchers that aren't likely to know.

11

[deleted] t1_j0skqjj wrote

Dude, what? Significands and unit round off are some of the first things you learn

1

norbertus t1_j0trg2w wrote

We should just train a definitive AI on the subject and all of us just defer to that

0

AlwaysGoToTheTruck t1_j0td04t wrote

In my grad stats classes, we often talked about different results between programs as well as how various methods hold up to each other and what caused the differences. I assumed this was common knowledge.

6

bloodmonarch t1_j0tl7q0 wrote

If its only taught at grad class then its definitely not a common knowledge

6

topgallantswain t1_j0sx1x2 wrote

I think the big problem when either statisticians or software developers make errors like this is that even if a researcher discovers a discrepancy... it is assumed the researcher did something wrong. And then, they end up on some wild goose chase scratching their heads. If SPSS is really calculating the rank test incorrectly... OMG! Not sure that's "researcher degrees of freedom" but maybe the authors are being sarcastic themselves.

I have tried to run these kinds of discrepancies down. If you aren't trying to be a statistician, it's easier to just write it up in a paragraph how you solved it, and life goes on. No one would ever really put two and two together though. Maybe these authors were willing to take that further.

5

AutoModerator t1_j0rdf24 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Diamond4Hands4Ever t1_j0td4uw wrote

Is this saying people will use the program that gives them the results to best fit their narrative?

1

almightySapling t1_j12vibb wrote

It doesn't say they already are, but it does suggest that they start doing so.

However, not with such an insidious tone. This is actually a warning that these calculators might be giving us the wrong answers and to double check.

1

SylvPMDRTD t1_j0twupn wrote

I’ve been playing with SPSS and PSPP for a few undergrad things. I like them, but have noticed the difference in a few different areas. ( I don’t have the training to create my own algorithm, I mainly just use the default functions.)

1