= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on The Role of Attractiveness in Mate Selection: Individual Variation - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (37)
I suspect it's parameter uncertainty rather than data uncertainty--that is, instead of showing the the fit plus/minus one stdev so you can check that about two-thirds of the data points fall in that rectangle, it's giving you a sense of what family of fit lines all fit the data 'well enough' (i.e. within some distance of the best fit).
That's probably it. When fitting a line using MCMC you'll get an anticorrelated blob of probabilities for slope and intercept, and if you plot one deviation in the fit parameters you get something that looks like this. I'd guess this is a non-parametric analogue of that. Notice how both grow significantly at the edges of the plots.