<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nerdy Sunday</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/09/21/nerdy-sunday/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/09/21/nerdy-sunday/</link>
	<description>Politics, elections and piffle plinking</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:24:54 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ozpolitics</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/09/21/nerdy-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-11015</link>
		<dc:creator>ozpolitics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:43:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/?p=1935#comment-11015</guid>
		<description>As I understand it ...

If the data points are equally spaced, the Henderson filter and the second order LOESS filter of the same length effectively deploy a very very similar set of symmetric weights. They essentially do the same job across the middle of the scatterplot. If the data points are not equally spaced (and with opinion polls they are not), then the LOESS regression technique is technically better. 

However, their treatment of the end point problem is a little different. Both effectively use a system of asymmetric weights. Arguably, the LOESS system has a higher weight on the final data points than the Henderson system. While this makes it more responsive to identifying turning points, it also leads to &quot;false positives&quot; and it more readily mistakes noise at the end of a series as signal. (The converse argument is that Henderson is a little more laggy when it comes to the turning points). But quite honestly, that is a quibble. 

I use Henderson, primarily because it is simpler with my software. It looks like Possum uses something like the R Stats package, and so I suspect he uses LOESS for the same reason. 

But seriously, both approaches serve the same purpose. They remove the noise from the polling data to reveal the underlying signal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I understand it &#8230;</p>
<p>If the data points are equally spaced, the Henderson filter and the second order LOESS filter of the same length effectively deploy a very very similar set of symmetric weights. They essentially do the same job across the middle of the scatterplot. If the data points are not equally spaced (and with opinion polls they are not), then the LOESS regression technique is technically better. </p>
<p>However, their treatment of the end point problem is a little different. Both effectively use a system of asymmetric weights. Arguably, the LOESS system has a higher weight on the final data points than the Henderson system. While this makes it more responsive to identifying turning points, it also leads to &#8220;false positives&#8221; and it more readily mistakes noise at the end of a series as signal. (The converse argument is that Henderson is a little more laggy when it comes to the turning points). But quite honestly, that is a quibble. </p>
<p>I use Henderson, primarily because it is simpler with my software. It looks like Possum uses something like the R Stats package, and so I suspect he uses LOESS for the same reason. </p>
<p>But seriously, both approaches serve the same purpose. They remove the noise from the polling data to reveal the underlying signal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Possum</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/09/21/nerdy-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-10960</link>
		<dc:creator>Possum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:11:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/?p=1935#comment-10960</guid>
		<description>I certainly could LO - that sounds like a plan for this coming Nerdy Sunday.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I certainly could LO &#8211; that sounds like a plan for this coming Nerdy Sunday.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Labor Outsider</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/09/21/nerdy-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-10958</link>
		<dc:creator>Labor Outsider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:43:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/?p=1935#comment-10958</guid>
		<description>Hi Possum - nice post - the LOESS regression is a nice tool - though not very transparent for non-mathematical types. As you say, their flexibility is both an advantage (testing sensitivity) and a disadvantage (choices can seem arbitrary). One problem with moving averages is that they usually suffer from end-point problems -you don&#039;t have any information after the last data-point, which can bias the trend at the end of the sample. Can you discuss a little more how the LOESS regression compares to other sophisticated moving average tools on that criteria?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Possum &#8211; nice post &#8211; the LOESS regression is a nice tool &#8211; though not very transparent for non-mathematical types. As you say, their flexibility is both an advantage (testing sensitivity) and a disadvantage (choices can seem arbitrary). One problem with moving averages is that they usually suffer from end-point problems -you don&#8217;t have any information after the last data-point, which can bias the trend at the end of the sample. Can you discuss a little more how the LOESS regression compares to other sophisticated moving average tools on that criteria?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Possum</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/09/21/nerdy-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-10957</link>
		<dc:creator>Possum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:05:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/?p=1935#comment-10957</guid>
		<description>Peter, HMA&#039;s are laggy by nature, often requiring 4 or 5 observations before a trend clearly emerges while LOESS regressions can be tuned to any sensitivity.

There&#039;s nothing wrong with HMA&#039;s - they&#039;re one of many types of smoothing algorithm. I just prefer LOESS regressions because of their flexibility.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter, HMA&#8217;s are laggy by nature, often requiring 4 or 5 observations before a trend clearly emerges while LOESS regressions can be tuned to any sensitivity.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s nothing wrong with HMA&#8217;s &#8211; they&#8217;re one of many types of smoothing algorithm. I just prefer LOESS regressions because of their flexibility.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Possum</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/09/21/nerdy-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-10956</link>
		<dc:creator>Possum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/?p=1935#comment-10956</guid>
		<description>Magic Pudding, I&#039;m using just one tracking poll - Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

I just use Gallup because it&#039;s a large poll, with a rolling three day average (meaning it has relatively low levels of volatility) - what&#039;s important about it as a poll isn&#039;t it&#039;s headline results per se, but any slow trends that emerge from it. If Gallup is, say, showing a trend toward Obama and the markets are doing the same, then we know that movement is consistent and likely to be real. 

If the markets stay at a consistent value of Electoral College votes, and the Gallup stays consistent, then it&#039;s pretty likely that the contest isn&#039;t changing from where it recently was. We could use any of the Daily tracking polls for this, like Rasmussen for example - I just had to choose one, so Gallup it was.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Magic Pudding, I&#8217;m using just one tracking poll &#8211; Gallup:<br />
<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx</a></p>
<p>I just use Gallup because it&#8217;s a large poll, with a rolling three day average (meaning it has relatively low levels of volatility) &#8211; what&#8217;s important about it as a poll isn&#8217;t it&#8217;s headline results per se, but any slow trends that emerge from it. If Gallup is, say, showing a trend toward Obama and the markets are doing the same, then we know that movement is consistent and likely to be real. </p>
<p>If the markets stay at a consistent value of Electoral College votes, and the Gallup stays consistent, then it&#8217;s pretty likely that the contest isn&#8217;t changing from where it recently was. We could use any of the Daily tracking polls for this, like Rasmussen for example &#8211; I just had to choose one, so Gallup it was.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: the.magic.pudding</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/09/21/nerdy-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-10955</link>
		<dc:creator>the.magic.pudding</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/?p=1935#comment-10955</guid>
		<description>While comforted by your sage analysis, all the polls I read on American papers&#039; websites have McCain and Obama neck and neck. What gives?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While comforted by your sage analysis, all the polls I read on American papers&#8217; websites have McCain and Obama neck and neck. What gives?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter J. Nicol</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/09/21/nerdy-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-10954</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter J. Nicol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:32:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/?p=1935#comment-10954</guid>
		<description>Poss, I notice over at Ozpolitics the Henderson Moving Average of various terms seems to be favoured.

This seems to be another method of smoothing out the noise - I wonder if you would care to give your thoughts on how it compares with the LOESS regression?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Poss, I notice over at Ozpolitics the Henderson Moving Average of various terms seems to be favoured.</p>
<p>This seems to be another method of smoothing out the noise &#8211; I wonder if you would care to give your thoughts on how it compares with the LOESS regression?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: adherent</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/09/21/nerdy-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-10953</link>
		<dc:creator>adherent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/?p=1935#comment-10953</guid>
		<description>Nice.  Thanks for that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice.  Thanks for that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
