skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 11:00 PM ET on Friday, April 12 until 2:00 AM ET on Saturday, April 13 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: Conversion of hydroperoxides to carbonyls in field and laboratory instrumentation: Observational bias in diagnosing pristine versus anthropogenically controlled atmospheric chemistry: ROOH observational bias
Award ID(s):
1331360
NSF-PAR ID:
10013182
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Geophysical Research Letters
Volume:
41
Issue:
23
ISSN:
0094-8276
Page Range / eLocation ID:
8645 to 8651
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Networks that provide agents with access to a common database of the agents' actions enable an agent to easily learn by observing the actions of others, but are also susceptible to manipulation by “fake” agents. Prior work has studied a model for the impact of such fake agents on ordinary (rational) agents in a sequential Bayesian observational learning framework. That model assumes that ordinary agents do not have an ex-ante bias in their actions and that they follow their private information in case of an ex-post tie between actions. This paper builds on that work to study the effect of fake agents on the welfare obtained by ordinary agents under different ex-ante biases and different tie-breaking rules. We show that varying either of these can lead to cases where, unlike in the prior work, the addition of fake agents leads to a gain in welfare. This implies that in such cases, if fake agents are absent or are not adequately present, an altruistic platform could artificially introduce fake actions to effect improved learning. 
    more » « less
  2. Summary

    A common practice with ordered doses of treatment and ordered responses, perhaps recorded in a contingency table with ordered rows and columns, is to cut or remove a cross from the table, leaving the outer corners—that is, the high-versus-low dose, high-versus-low response corners—and from these corners to compute a risk or odds ratio. This little remarked but common practice seems to be motivated by the oldest and most familiar method of sensitivity analysis in observational studies, proposed by Cornfield et al. (1959), which says that to explain a population risk ratio purely as bias from an unobserved binary covariate, the prevalence ratio of the covariate must exceed the risk ratio. Quite often, the largest risk ratio, hence the one least sensitive to bias by this standard, is derived from the corners of the ordered table with the central cross removed. Obviously, the corners use only a portion of the data, so a focus on the corners has consequences for the standard error as well as for bias, but sampling variability was not a consideration in this early and familiar form of sensitivity analysis, where point estimates replaced population parameters. Here, this cross-cut analysis is examined with the aid of design sensitivity and the power of a sensitivity analysis.

     
    more » « less