One way to address the N/A issue is to repeatedly perturb the real-world system so as to elicit those correlations. When that is practical..
> On Apr 19, 2020, at 8:33 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, the argument I often end up making is that you can do a kind of face > validation with the fake data. Show it to someone who's used to dealing with > that sort of data and if the fake data looks a lot like the data they > normally deal with, then maybe more data-taking isn't necessary. If it looks > fake to the "expert", then more data-taking is definitely needed. > >> On 4/19/20 8:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> I have a hard time with this as a way to extend data. If it is >> high-dimensional it will be under-sampled. Seems better to me to measure >> or simulate more so that the joint distribution can be realistic. And if >> you can do that there is no reason to infer the joint distribution because >> you *have* it. >> >>>> On Apr 19, 2020, at 8:18 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Going back and forth: If you infer the causal graph from observational >>> data you can use that graph to simulate data with the same joint >>> distribution as the original data. > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
