Censoring — where it appears
Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A quantity resting against a wall
The short note of a swung pair was found sitting exactly on the fast edge of the tempo window. If that edge is a floor rather than a fitted number, then every swing statistic computed until now was computed on a censored sample — and a censored sample has a mean that is 0.80 standard deviations too high, a spread that is 40 per cent too low, and a correction gain that can come out twice what the players actually have.
The shape a wall leaves behind
A floor on execution biases every statistic computed on swing timing, and the bias was priced with Pearson's truncated-normal formulas. Those are the formulas for a sample with everything below the wall thrown away. A player who cannot execute a short gap does not throw the attempt away — it comes out at the floor. That is a censored sample, its bias is exactly half, and its skew is two thirds larger.
The parent nobody measured
Every figure drawn behind a wall so far assumed a normal parent, and the assumption turns out to matter in exactly the wrong place. The censored bias is half the parent's mean absolute deviation — a theorem, not a coincidence — so it lands between 0.35 and 0.43 spreads for every distribution tried, and the truncated one runs from 0.58 to 1.00. But the third moment proposed as the test moves 2.9 across parents against 0.65 between the two rules, and a censored sample from a slightly left-skewed parent has a skew of 1.007 where a truncated normal has 0.995. The statistic that does work is a count of ties.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
MicrotimingSwingTempoTiming deviationGrooveMotor noiseStatisticsJitterMotor delayRegression to the mean