## Some of our work from the past year

Our published papers are listed here in approximate reverse chronological order (including some unexpected items such as a review of a book on international relations), and our unpublished papers are here. (Many but not all of the unpublished papers will eventually end up in the “published” category.)

No new books this year except for the second edition of my Teaching Statistics book with Deb Nolan. Also relevant for teaching purposes are our recent articles in Slate.

If you like the give-and-take of discussion, you can go back and read the past 400 or so blog entries. Thanks as always for all of you who write the thoughtful comments that make this such a wonderful place to learn.

Finally, a lot of our work has gone into Stan and hasn’t been formulated as research papers, but you can see the Stan forums to get a sense of some of the things that have been going on, or you could do a diff on the Stan manual, or take a look at the Stan case studies. I didn’t write Stan but I’ve been a frequent user.

We get a lot of research funding from many different sources (see here for a partial list), so it’s only fair that we share as much as we can with all of you.

Happy new year, and thanks again for all the thoughtful and lively discussion!

P.S. Here are the articles from 2017:

Published:

1. Paul Alper says:

Andrew:
“Also relevant for teaching purposes are our recent articles in Slate.”

In one of your Slate articles you write:

“When the election came around, Trump ended up with nearly 50 percent of the two-party vote—according to the latest count, he lost to Hillary Clinton by only 200,000 votes.”

Actually, Clinton won by well over 2 million votes so you are off by at least a factor of ten. Is this par for the course in the (Trump) polling game?

“Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.

Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote. (That’s a difference of 2.86 million votes.)”

Consequently, make that a factor of 14.3.

• Andrew says:

Paul:

Sure, it’s fine for teaching purposes for students to see that it takes awhile for all the votes to be counted.

• Paul Alper says:

When dealing with the 2016 election I am reminded of the following which appeared in
https://andrewgelman.com/2017/04/06/dear-cornell-university-public-relations-office/

“these [Wansink] numbers don’t add up. None of them add up! The numbers violate the Law of Conservation of Carrots.”

Likewise, Trump’s triumph and his continuing hold on his followers remain essentially inexplicable to a rational mind.

• Andrew says:

Paul:

Not inexplicable from the standpoint of political polarization. A Trump supporter can consider him and his policies, on the whole, to be superior to the Democratic alternative.

2. Allan C says:

Thanks for sharing and facilitating the blog (along with your other co-authors). We would be much worse off if you did not do so.

3. Jorge says:

Thanks for sharing this. Any news on when the new the new “Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models” will be released? I’m assuming everything (or most majority) will be in Stan, so I’m looking forward!

4. Eddie says:

+1 on looking forward to the 2nd edition of ARM. Will literally jump for joy when it’s released!

5. Andrew says:

Jorge:

We’re almost finished Regression and Other Stories (the update of the first half of ARM), then we’ll do Advanced Regression and Multilevel Models (the update of the second half). The code is mostly in R and rstanarm.

Eddie:

I too will jump for joy when this is done!

6. Anonymous says:

There is a problem with the direct links to the different papers, where you get an page not found error, if you try to click on any of them.