mscroggs.co.uk
mscroggs.co.uk

subscribe

Blog

 2023-02-03 
Imagine a set of 142 points on a two-dimensional graph. The mean of the \(x\)-values of the points is 54.26. The mean of the \(y\)-values of the points is 47.83. The standard deviation of the \(x\)-values is 16.76. The standard deviation of the \(y\)-values is 26.93.
What are you imagining that the data looks like?
Whatever you're thinking of, it's probably not this:
The datasaurus.
This is the datasaurus, a dataset that was created by Alberto Cairo in 2016 to remind people to look beyond the summary statistics when analysing a dataset.

Anscombe's quartet

In 1972, four datasets with a similar aim were publised. Graphs in statistical analysis by Francis J Anscombe [1] contained four datasets that have become known as Anscombe's quartet: they all have the same mean \(x\)-value, mean \(y\)-value, standard deviation of \(x\)-values, standard deviation of \(y\)-values, linear regression line, as well multiple other values related to correlation and variance. But if you plot them, the four datasets look very different:
Plots of the four datasets that make up Anscombe's quartet. For each set of data: the mean of the \(x\)-values is 9; the mean of the \(y\)-values is 7.5; the standard deviation of the \(x\)-values is 3.32; the standard deviation of the \(y\)-values is 2.03; the correlation coefficient between \(x\) and \(y\) is 0.816; the linear regression line is \(y=3+0.5x\); and coefficient of determination of linear regression is 0.667.
Anscombe noted that there were prevalent attitudes that:
The four datasets were designed to counter these by showing that data exhibiting the same statistics can actually be very very different.

The datasaurus dozen

Anscombe's datasets indicate their point well, but the arrangement of the points is very regular and looks a little artificial when compared with real data sets. In 2017, twelve sets of more realistic-looking data were published (in Same stats, different graphs: generating datasets with varied appearance and identical statistics through simulated annealing by Justin Matejka and George Fitzmaurice [2]).
These datasets—known as the datasaurus dozen—all had the same mean \(x\)-value, mean \(y\)-value, standard deviation of \(x\)-values, standard deviation of \(y\)-values, and corellation coefficient (to two decimal places) as the datasaurus.
The twelve datasets that make up the datasaurus dozen. For each set of data (to two decimal places): the mean of the \(x\)-values is 54.26; the mean of the \(y\)-values is 47.83; the standard deviation of the \(x\)-values is 16.76; the standard deviation of the \(y\)-values is 26.93; the correlation coefficient between \(x\) and \(y\) is -0.06.
Creating datasets like this is not trivial: if you have a set of values for the statistical properties of a dataset, it is difficult to create a dataset with those properties—especially one that looks like a certain shape or pattern. But if you already have one dataset with the desired properties, you can make other datasets with the same properties by very slightly moving every point in a random direction then checking that the properties are the same—if you do this a few times, you'll eventually get a second dataset with the right properties.
The datasets in the datasaurus dozen were generated using this method: repeatedly adjusting all the points ever so slightly, checking if the properties were the same, then keeping the updated data if it's closer to a target shape.

The databet

Using the same method, I generated the databet: a collection of datasets that look like the letters of the alphabet. I started with this set of 100 points resembling a star:
My starting dataset
After a long time repeatedly moving points by a very small amount, my computer eventually generated these 26 datasets, all of which have the same means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficient:
The databet. For each set of data (to two decimal places): the mean of the \(x\)-values is 0.50; the mean of the \(y\)-values is 0.52; the standard deviation of the \(x\)-values is 0.17; the standard deviation of the \(y\)-values is 0.18; the correlation coefficient between \(x\) and \(y\) is 0.16.

Words

Now that we have the alphabet, we can write words using the databet. You can enter a word or phrase here to do this:

Given two data sets with the same number of points, we can make a new larger dataset by including all the points in both the smaller sets. It is possible to write the mean and standard deviation of the larger dataset in terms of the means and standard deviations of the smaller sets: in each case, the statistic of the larger set depends only on the statistics of the smaller sets and not on the actual data.
Applying this to the databet, we see that the datasets that spell words of a fixed length will all have the same mean and standard deviation. (The same is not true, sadly, for the correlation coefficient.) For example, the datasets shown in the following plot both have the same means and standard deviations:
Datasets that spell "TRUE☆" and "FALSE". For both sets of (to two decimal places): the mean of the \(x\)-values is 2.50; the mean of the \(y\)-values is 0.52; the standard deviation of the \(x\)-values is 1.42; the standard deviation of the \(y\)-values is 0.18.
Hopefully by now you agree with me that Anscombe was right: it's very important to plot data as well as looking at the summary statistics.
 
If you want to play with the databet yourself, all the letters are available on GitHub in JSON format. The GitHub repo also includes fonts that you can download and install so you can use Databet Sans in your next important document.

Graphs in statistical analysis by Francis J Anscombe. American Statistician, 1973.
Same stats, different graphs: generating datasets with varied appearance and identical statistics through simulated annealing by Justin Matejka and George Fitzmaurice. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2017.
×4                        
(Click on one of these icons to react to this blog post)

You might also enjoy...

Comments

Comments in green were written by me. Comments in blue were not written by me.
Very cool! Thanks for sharing ????
Jessica
   ×4         ×1     Reply
 Add a Comment 


I will only use your email address to reply to your comment (if a reply is needed).

Allowed HTML tags: <br> <a> <small> <b> <i> <s> <sup> <sub> <u> <spoiler> <ul> <ol> <li> <logo>
To prove you are not a spam bot, please type "b" then "i" then "s" then "e" then "c" then "t" in the box below (case sensitive):
 2018-06-16 
This year, like every World Cup year, I've been collecting stickers to fill the official Panini World Cup sticker album. Back in March, I calculated that I should expect it to cost £268.99 to fill this year's album (if I order the last 50 stickers). As of 6pm yesterday, I need 47 stickers to complete the album (and have placed an order on the Panini website for these).

So... How much did it cost?

In total, I have bought 1781 stickers (including the 47 I ordered) at a cost of £275.93. The plot below shows the money spent against the number of stickers stuck in, compared with the what I predicted in March.
To create this plot, I've been keeping track of exactly which stickers were in each pack I bought. Using this data, we can look for a few more things. If you want to play with the data yourself, there's a link at the bottom to download it.

Swaps

The bar chart below shows the number of copies of each sticker I got (excluding the 47 that I ordered). Unsurprisingly, it looks a lot like random noise.
The sticker I got most copies of was sticker 545, showing Panana player Armando Cooper.
Armando Cooper on sticker 545
I got swaps of 513 different stickers, meaning I'm only 169 stickers short of filling a second album.

First pack of all swaps

Everyone who has every done a sticker book will remember the awful feeling you get when you first get a pack of all swaps. For me, the first time this happened was the 50th pack. The plot below shows when the first pack of all swaps occurred in 500,000 simulations.
Looks like I was really quite unlucky to get a pack of all swaps so soon.

Duplicates in a pack

In all the 345 packs that I bought, there wasn't a single pack that contained two copies of the same sticker. In fact, I don't remember ever getting two of the same sticker in a pack. For a while I've been wondering if this is because Panini ensure that packs don't contain duplicates, or if it's simply very unlikely that they do.
If it was down to unlikeliness, the probability of having no duplicates in one pack would be:
\begin{align} \mathbb{P}(\text{no duplicates in a pack}) &= 1 \times\frac{681}{682}\times\frac{680}{682}\times\frac{679}{682}\times\frac{678}{682}\\ &= 0.985 \end{align}
and the probability of none of my 345 containing a duplicate would be:
\begin{align} \mathbb{P}(\text{no duplicates in 345 packs}) &= 0.985^{345}\\ &= 0.00628 \end{align}
This is very very small, so it's safe to conclude that Panini do indeed ensure that packs do not contain duplicates.

The data

If you'd like to have a play with the data yourself, you can download it here. Let me know if you do anything with it...
                        
(Click on one of these icons to react to this blog post)

You might also enjoy...

Comments

Comments in green were written by me. Comments in blue were not written by me.
 Add a Comment 


I will only use your email address to reply to your comment (if a reply is needed).

Allowed HTML tags: <br> <a> <small> <b> <i> <s> <sup> <sub> <u> <spoiler> <ul> <ol> <li> <logo>
To prove you are not a spam bot, please type "y-axis" in the box below (case sensitive):
 2017-11-14 
A few weeks ago, I took the copy of MENACE that I built to Manchester Science Festival, where it played around 300 games against the public while learning to play Noughts and Crosses. The group of us operating MENACE for the weekend included Matt Parker, who made two videos about it. Special thanks go to Matt, plus Katie Steckles, Alison Clarke, Andrew Taylor, Ashley Frankland, David Williams, Paul Taylor, Sam Headleand, Trent Burton, and Zoe Griffiths for helping to operate MENACE for the weekend.
As my original post about MENACE explains in more detail, MENACE is a machine built from 304 matchboxes that learns to play Noughts and Crosses. Each box displays a possible position that the machine can face and contains coloured beads that correspond to the moves it could make. At the end of each game, beads are added or removed depending on the outcome to teach MENACE to play better.

Saturday

On Saturday, MENACE was set up with 8 beads of each colour in the first move box; 3 of each colour in the second move boxes; 2 of each colour in third move boxes; and 1 of each colour in the fourth move boxes. I had only included one copy of moves that are the same due to symmetry.
The plot below shows the number of beads in MENACE's first box as the day progressed.

Sunday

Originally, we were planning to let MENACE learn over the course of both days, but it learned more quickly than we had expected on Saturday, so we reset is on Sunday, but set it up slightly differently. On Sunday, MENACE was set up with 4 beads of each colour in the first move box; 3 of each colour in the second move boxes; 2 of each colour in third move boxes; and 1 of each colour in the fourth move boxes. This time, we left all the beads in the boxes and didn't remove any due to symmetry.
The plot below shows the number of beads in MENACE's first box as the day progressed.

The data

You can download the full set of data that we collected over the weekend here. This includes the first two moves and outcomes of all the games over the two days, plus the number of beads in each box at the end of each day. If you do something interesting (or non-interesting) with the data, let me know!
                        
(Click on one of these icons to react to this blog post)

You might also enjoy...

Comments

Comments in green were written by me. Comments in blue were not written by me.
WRT the comment 2017-11-17, and exactly one year later, I had the same thing happen whilst running MENACE in a 'Resign' loop for a few hours, unattended. When I returned, the orange overlay had appeared, making the screen quite difficult to read on an iPad.
g0mrb
                 Reply
On the JavaScript version, MENACE2 (a second version of MENACE which learns in the same way, to play against the original) keeps setting the 6th move as NaN, meaning it cannot function. Is there a fix for this?
Lambert
                 Reply
what would happen if you loaded the boxes slightly differently. if you started with one bead corresponding to each move in each box. if the bead caused the machine to lose you remove only that bead. if the game draws you leave the bead in play if the bead causes a win you put an extra bead in each of the boxes that led to the win. if the box becomes empty you remove the bead that lead to that result from the box before
Ian
                 Reply
Hi, I was playing with MENACE, and after a while the page redrew with a Dragon Curves design over the top. MENACE was still working alright but it was difficult to see what I was doing due to the overlay. I did a screen capture of it if you want to see it.
Russ
                 Reply
 Add a Comment 


I will only use your email address to reply to your comment (if a reply is needed).

Allowed HTML tags: <br> <a> <small> <b> <i> <s> <sup> <sub> <u> <spoiler> <ul> <ol> <li> <logo>
To prove you are not a spam bot, please type "axes" in the box below (case sensitive):

Archive

Show me a random blog post
 2024 

Feb 2024

Zines, pt. 2

Jan 2024

Christmas (2023) is over
 2023 
▼ show ▼
 2022 
▼ show ▼
 2021 
▼ show ▼
 2020 
▼ show ▼
 2019 
▼ show ▼
 2018 
▼ show ▼
 2017 
▼ show ▼
 2016 
▼ show ▼
 2015 
▼ show ▼
 2014 
▼ show ▼
 2013 
▼ show ▼
 2012 
▼ show ▼

Tags

matrix of minors programming turtles hannah fry error bars matt parker christmas card coins news a gamut of games youtube estimation probability mathsjam chebyshev pizza cutting craft bempp gerry anderson dinosaurs asteroids misleading statistics signorini conditions curvature tmip map projections logic european cup manchester science festival puzzles countdown cross stitch folding tube maps pac-man zines london binary stickers raspberry pi talking maths in public numbers bodmas preconditioning speed convergence finite element method captain scarlet numerical analysis simultaneous equations accuracy errors javascript fractals dates logs mathsteroids final fantasy royal baby sorting mean sound christmas ternary determinants advent calendar statistics noughts and crosses guest posts pascal's triangle world cup ucl braiding tennis boundary element methods newcastle realhats manchester dataset london underground wave scattering people maths gather town standard deviation dragon curves video games inline code crossnumber golden spiral finite group pi fonts electromagnetic field runge's phenomenon platonic solids sobolev spaces arithmetic machine learning plastic ratio reuleaux polygons matrices trigonometry big internet math-off exponential growth python logo geogebra oeis wool databet frobel propositional calculus pythagoras latex light books harriss spiral games rugby weak imposition cambridge phd graphs sport bubble bobble mathslogicbot polynomials folding paper golden ratio the aperiodical squares pi approximation day hexapawn graph theory recursion football 24 hour maths national lottery go game of life flexagons php matrix multiplication chess crochet draughts gaussian elimination matrix of cofactors reddit approximation correlation game show probability stirling numbers triangles interpolation geometry chalkdust magazine hats palindromes weather station datasaurus dozen nine men's morris royal institution inverse matrices rhombicuboctahedron hyperbolic surfaces live stream edinburgh data visualisation quadrilaterals fence posts martin gardner data anscombe's quartet computational complexity menace radio 4

Archive

Show me a random blog post
▼ show ▼
© Matthew Scroggs 2012–2024