Possible issues with figures and results in Chapter 9

[ricardoV94]

Hi,

I have been trying to replicate some of your results and I might have found an issue in Chapter 9.

My results suggest a much tighter posterior after observing the four data points x=[15, 16, 18, 21] than what is suggested in your Figures 9.2 and 9.5, as well as in the reported posterior credible intervals.

In fact, I get something closer to your posterior plots if I only include the last datapoint x=[21].

You can see my results in this colab notebook

[AllenDowney]

Thanks for letting me know. I will check that out as soon as I can. Allen

…

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, at 10:22 AM, ricardoV94 wrote: Hi, I have been trying to replicate some of your results and I might have found an issue in Chapter 9. My results suggest a much tighter posterior after observing the four data points x=[15, 16, 18, 21] than what is suggested in your Figures 9.2 and 9.5, as well as in the reported posterior credible intervals. In fact, I get something closer to your posterior plots if I only include the last datapoint x=[21]. You can see my results in this colab notebook <https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1-sHK8QHJ8MSqXQOCXA7QUfEtNgpp_C5v> — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#20?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAOLP3MYFJS4IK7J4ORCBRTQ6RV3PA5CNFSM4KIZ2FT2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4IHF5BWQ>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAOLP3NXUQHAGGQES2YEP2DQ6RV3PANCNFSM4KIZ2FTQ>.

[ricardoV94]

Just to let you know, I also tried to model this in PyMC, and it too suggests a much more narrow posterior.

Thanks for your attention!