Rendering of figures with LaTeX boxes does not work right

Figure 3: Have angina or coronary heart disease compared with having had a heart attack, versus BMI. Discerning the range of lowest scores (that is, the BMIs) over which the cumulative plot drops steeply is difficult in all but the reliability diagram with the greatest number of bins. And, unfortunately, the reliability diagram with the greatest number of bins is very noisy. The reliability diagrams also look inconsistent around BMI of 41 (the steep incline in the cumulative graph explains why).

$m=$ 396,326 (with $\ell=$ 3,985 distinct scores)
$n=$ 3,985
Kuiper’s statistic $=0.002511/\sigma=3.052$ ; the asymptotic P-value $=0.009106$
Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s $=0.001659/\sigma=2.015$ ; asymptotic P-value $=0.08773$
ATE $=-0.0008138/\sigma=-0.9889$

(b)

Figure 4: Have had a stroke compared with having kidney disease, versus BMI. As with all Figures 3–8, the scores are the survey participants’ BMIs. Discerning that the expected difference between having had a stroke and having kidney disease is roughly constant for scores greater than 35 is really hard from the reliability diagrams, due to noise when there are many bins or insufficient resolution when there are few bins.

$m=$ 396,326 (with $\ell=$ 3,985 distinct scores)
$n_{0}=$ 23,035
$n=$ 3,985
Kuiper’s statistic $=0.01831/\sigma=4.083$ ; the asymptotic P-value $=0.0001781$
Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s $=0.01829/\sigma=4.078$ ; asymptotic P-value $=0.0000908$
ATE $=0.01821/\sigma=4.061$

(b)

Figure 5: Could afford to see a doctor (rather than could not) versus BMI for those who have had a heart attack compared with the full population (the full population includes both those who have had a heart attack and those who have not). There seems to be a Simpson’s Paradox in the reliability diagrams for BMI around 30. Determining the size of the difference for BMI less than 20 is impossible from any but the noisiest of the reliability diagrams, whereas the difference is easy to quantify from the slope of the cumulative graph.

$m=$ 396,326 (with 3,985 distinct scores prior to randomization)
$n_{0}=$ 121,203
$n_{1}=$ 232,734
$n=$ 79,220
Kuiper’s statistic $=0.002595/\sigma=4.635$ ; the asymptotic P-value $=0.000014$
Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s $=0.001460/\sigma=2.607$ ; asymptotic P-value $=0.01827$
ATE $=-0.001484/\sigma=-2.650$ (or $-0.001711/\sigma$ $=-3.056$ after having averaged over 25 random infinitesimal perturbations of the original scores)

(b)

Figure 6: Have kidney disease (rather than do not) versus BMI for those tested for HIV compared with those not tested. Making sense for scores less than 20 of the large difference between those tested and those not tested is very difficult using only the reliability diagrams, whereas the cumulative plot is crystal clear.

$m=$ 396,326 (with 3,985 distinct scores prior to randomization)
$n_{0}=$ 121,203
$n_{1}=$ 232,734
$n=$ 79,533
Kuiper’s statistic $=0.002713/\sigma=4.713$ ; the asymptotic P-value $=0.0000097$
Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s $=0.001892/\sigma=3.286$ ; asymptotic P-value $=0.002034$
ATE $=-0.002477/\sigma=-4.303$ (or $-0.001586/\sigma$ $=-2.756$ after having averaged over 25 random infinitesimal perturbations of the original scores)

(b)

Figure 7: Have kidney disease (rather than do not) versus BMI for those tested for HIV compared with those not tested, with scores randomized from a different random seed (namely, 54321) than that for Figure 6 (which used 543216789). As in Figure 6, making sense for scores below 20 of the big difference between those tested and those not tested is hard using only the reliability diagrams, whereas the cumulative plots are clear.

$m=$ 396,326 (with 3,985 distinct scores prior to randomization)
$n_{0}=$ 121,203
$n_{1}=$ 232,734
$n=$ 79,551
Kuiper’s statistic $=0.003108/\sigma=5.214$ ; the asymptotic P-value $=0.0000007$
Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s $=0.001828/\sigma=3.066$ ; asymptotic P-value $=0.004335$
ATE $=-0.001858/\sigma=-3.117$ (or $-0.001662/\sigma$ $=-2.788$ after having averaged over 25 random infinitesimal perturbations of the original scores)

(b)

Figure 8: Have kidney disease (rather than do not) versus BMI for those tested for HIV compared with those not tested, with scores randomized from a different random seed (namely, 6789) than that for Figures 6 and 7. The cumulative plot here is as clear as in Figures 6 and 7, whereas making sense for scores less than 20 of the large difference between those tested and those not tested is hard using only the reliability diagrams.

$m=$ 396,326 (with 105 distinct scores prior to randomization)
$n_{0}=$ 193,659
$n_{1}=$ 202,667
$n=$ 45,370
Kuiper’s statistic $=0.5027/\sigma=19.88$ ; the asymptotic P-value is less than $10^{-16}$
Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s $=0.5021/\sigma=19.86$ ; the asymptotic P-value is less than $10^{-16}$
ATE $=0.9044/\sigma=35.77$ (or $0.8513/\sigma=33.67$ following averaging over 25 random infinitesimal perturbations of the original scores)

(b)

Figure 9: BMI versus height in centimeters for men compared with women. The scores for Figures 9–11 are heights instead of the BMIs used as scores for the earlier figures; BMIs are still used here, but now as responses rather than scores. Of course, height need not “cause” the associated BMI, but a causal connection seems more plausible with BMI depending on height rather than BMI “causing” height. Much higher BMI for men than for women who are equally very short jumps out of the cumulative plots. Assessing how much higher is trivial from the slope of the cumulative graph yet very tricky to divine from the reliability diagrams.

$m=$ 396,326 (with 105 distinct scores prior to randomization)
$n_{0}=$ 193,659
$n_{1}=$ 202,667
$n=$ 45,489
Kuiper’s statistic $=0.5165/\sigma=20.29$ ; the asymptotic P-value is less than $10^{-16}$
Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s $=0.5165/\sigma=20.29$ ; the asymptotic P-value is less than $10^{-16}$
ATE $=0.8183/\sigma=32.15$ (or $0.8603/\sigma=33.80$ following averaging over 25 random infinitesimal perturbations of the original scores)

(b)

Figure 10: BMI versus height in centimeters for men compared with women, with scores perturbed at random starting with a random seed, 54321, that is different from the seed used in Figure 9 (which was 543216789). The scores for these figures are heights, instead of the BMIs used as scores for the earlier figures; here, BMIs are responses rather than scores. As in Figure 9, the cumulative plot readily reveals much higher BMI for men than for women who report to be extremely short. The slope of the cumulative graph quantifies how much higher, whereas the reliability diagrams are hard to interpret for the very small scores.

$m=$ 396,326 (with 105 distinct scores prior to randomization)
$n_{0}=$ 193,659
$n_{1}=$ 202,667
$n=$ 45,379
Kuiper’s statistic $=0.4851/\sigma=18.62$ ; the asymptotic P-value is less than $10^{-16}$
Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s $=0.4851/\sigma=18.62$ ; the asymptotic P-value is less than $10^{-16}$
ATE $=0.8651/\sigma=33.21$ (or $0.8432/\sigma=32.36$ following averaging over 25 random infinitesimal perturbations of the original scores)

(b)

Figure 11: BMI versus height in centimeters for men compared with women, with scores perturbed at random using a different random seed (namely, 6789) than the seeds used in Figures 9 and 10. The scores for this figure and the other two are heights, instead of the BMIs used as scores for all other figures; BMIs are still used here, but as responses rather than scores. As in Figures 9 and 10, the cumulative plot reveals at a glance much higher BMI for men than for women who report being very, very short. The slope of the cumulative graph clearly quantifies how much higher, which is difficult to assess via the reliability diagrams.

arXiv / html_feedback

Rendering of figures with LaTeX boxes does not work right #2575

Description

(Optional:) Please add any files, screenshots, or other information here.

(Required) What is this issue most closely related to? Select one.

Internal issue ID

Paper URL

Browser

Device Type