Skip to content
EN

Back to the catalog

andifugard.info
rss2British English

Andi Fugard (∧⇒)

andifugard.info · British English

Personal website - any views expressed herein are my own unless otherwise obvious

rss2 video content atom dc sy

Open the feed

https://andifugard.info/feed/

Last post
Sep 6, 2026
Posts in 24 h · 7 days · 30 days
0 · 0 · 1
Our last check
Answering
Served from
United Kingdom
Site title
Andi Fugard (∧⇒) – Personal website – any views expressed herein are my own unless otherwise obvious
Text score at discovery
1,604
Format
rss2
Features in the feed
content, atom, dc, sy

Posts

What our queue read from this feed. Open one to read it here, or go to the site that published it.

  1. Diff-in-diffs versus baseline-adjusted regression under regression to the mean
    Sep 6, 2026 · original
    In another episode of, I wonder how well just regressing outcome on intervention group and baseline will do…? Here’s a scenario which breaks the diff-in-diffs parallel trends assumption using regression to the mean. The treatment group observations were selected so they’re further below the mean at baseline than the control group observations, so by regression to the mean alone, the treat group will show more change. (Pre-post correlation 0.6 in the population, before selection.) The DiD model was the usual 2×2 approach with participant fixed effects, which control for time-invariant effects that will not save us here. The baseline-adjusted model regresses outcome on group and baseline. The only confounder is baseline. See Ryan (2018) for discussion of some of the muddles in the DiD lit on these kinds of effects. References Ryan, A. M. (2018). Well‐Balanced or too Matchy–Matchy? The Cont
  2. {performance} package – model checking
    Aug 13, 2026 · original
    The performance package computes indices of model quality and goodness of fit, including \(R^2\) (including for LMMs), RMSE, ICCs, and tests for overdispersion, zero-inflation, convergence, and singularity. It also simplifies posterior predictive checks for every model with a simulate function.
  3. Evaluating agentic AI
    Aug 5, 2026 · original
    An extreme case of agentic AI gone wrong, but the recent AISI incident report is worth a read before you let complex agents loose on your personal or organisation’s files, allow them to reply to emails autonomously or go wild on the internet. Note: it happened during an evaluation of frontier AI models. Internet access was deliberately enabled and filters that block harmful behaviour were deliberately switched off for the evaluation. The affected models are not publicly available. In 10 runs out of 122, an agent carried out “potentially harmful” actions. There were 19 such actions, 17 from Anthropic’s Mythos 5 and two from OpenAI’s GPT-5.6-Sol. The most serious was when an agent tried to insert malicious code into an open-source project hosted on GitHub. It created fake GitHub accounts (via Tor) to try to persuade the project’s maintainer to approve the change; however, they spotted that
  4. Airspace violations by Russia
    Aug 3, 2026 · original
    There’s a Wikipedia page recording violations of non-combatant airspace during the Russo-Ukrainian war . Usual caveats apply with Wikipedia – check the citations. Two recent notable examples: Date Event 29 May 2026 A Russian Geran 2 drone entered Romanian airspace and hit the 10th floor of block of flats in Galați, exploding on impact. Two people were injured and about 70 evacuated as the resulting fire was put out. Romania’s president said, “There was a group of 43 drones coming from the east. Some were shot down over Ukraine, and one was hit above the [Ukrainian] city of Reni, which altered its trajectory.” ( BBC News ) 30 July 2026 A Russian missile (likely a Kh-101 cruise missile) crossed the border into Poland and crashed into a field close to the village of Tarnawa-Kolonia, 57 miles from the border with Ukraine. The missile left a 10 m-wide crater in the field. ( BBC News ) The Int
  5. Trying elastic net regularisation with correlated predictors
    Jul 26, 2026 · original
    First simulate data where \(x_1\) to \(x_3\) are identical and \(x_4\) is uncorrelated with them. Each \(x\) is a z-score. Set \(y = 0.2 (x_1 + x_2 + x_3) + 0.3 x_4 + \epsilon\). Now try elastic nets, varying \(\alpha\) from 0 (ridge regression) to 1 (lasso). I used 10‑fold cross‑validation to select \(\lambda\), keeping the coefficients for the smallest \(\lambda\), and used the same fold assignments across all values of \(\alpha\). Here’s a picture of the coefficients. Note how the correlated predictor slopes separate as \(\alpha\) increases until only one survives with a slope of about three times 0.2 (to compensate for the other missing identical predictors). The uncorrelated predictor slope stays the same. Here’s a table of coefficients for a selection of \(\alpha\), including the results from an unpenalised regression with only \(x_1\) and \(x_4\) as predictors: Variable α = 0 α =
  6. Counterfactual thinking – common and useful
    Jul 24, 2026 · original
    Counterfactual isn’t a synonym for control group. Here’s a brief Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science entry on counterfactual thinking, which argues that it is “extremely common and profoundly useful in ordinary life.” Whether or not you believe that your impact evaluation is counterfactual, there’s a good chance that your participants are using counterfactual thinking to answer your questions. Brigard, F. D. (2025). Counterfactual Thinking . In Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science . MIT Press.
  7. Testing 1 2 3 (4 5 6 7 8 …)
    Jul 18, 2026 · original
    When should you adjust p‑values or confidence intervals for multiple testing? It’s a complicated (and often painful) question, with the wide continuum of possible answers depicted below by Susan Ahmed (1991): I haven’t met anyone who’s an ultra conservative (on this dimension), but it may be an interesting exercise to estimate how many statistical tests you’re likely to use in a lifetime and what, e.g., a lifetime Bonferroni penality would do to your career. Sabine Hoffmann and colleagues (2026) offer a helpful guide on what to do. They summarise their principle as follows: “multiple testing should be adjusted for if and only if authors, when reporting and interpreting their findings, put more emphasis on the results of one or several of the tests because of their small p‑value(s)” (p. 3). This criterion of emphasis applies throughout your reporting, from the title and abstract through t
  8. RCT Bench
    Jul 14, 2026 · original
    “A curated public collection of randomised controlled trials for evaluating covariate-adjustment methods” – over here . Includes trials of mental health interventions.
  9. Futures
    Jul 13, 2026 · original
    I recently attended Henrik Bengtsson’s excellent UseR! 2026 workshop on the { futureverse }. Here are a few examples to show what it does.
  10. Fun with WebSDR
    Jun 18, 2026 · original
    Two very different transmissions you can hear on SW: 14.759 MHz USB: the E07 numbers station . 6.130 MHz AM: Radio Europe . Recorded using the WebSDR shortwave receiver hosted by the ETGD amateur radio club at the University of Twente.

Discovered by the rss-feed-index crawler, which checks each feed at most once a month.

Same record as JSON: https://api.agentalog.com/api/feeds/fd_andifugard_info_96aeda63680fc253. More from this site: andifugard.info in the Feeds tab.