Fitting complex survey data to regression equations is explored under a design-sensitive model-based framework. A robust version of the standard model assumes that the expected value of the difference between the dependent variable and its model-based prediction is zero no matter what the values of the explanatory variables. The extended model assumes only that the difference is uncorrelated with the covariates. Little is assumed about the error structure of this difference under either model other than independence across primary sampling units. The standard model often fails in practice, but the extended model very rarely does. Under this framework some of the methods developed in the conventional design-based, pseudo-maximum-likelihood framework, such as fitting weighted estimating equations and sandwich mean-squared-error estimation, are retained but their interpretations change. Few of the ideas here are new to the refereed literature. The goal instead is to collect those ideas and put them into a unified conceptual framework.

Model-based clustering is a popular approach for clustering multivariate data which has seen applications in numerous fields. Nowadays, high-dimensional data are more and more common and the model-based clustering approach has adapted to deal with the increasing dimensionality. In particular, the development of variable selection techniques has received a lot of attention and research effort in recent years. Even for small size problems, variable selection has been advocated to facilitate the interpretation of the clustering results. This review provides a summary of the methods developed for variable selection in model-based clustering. Existing R packages implementing the different methods are indicated and illustrated in application to two data analysis examples.

We are living in the big data era, as current technologies and networks allow for the easy and routine collection of data sets in different disciplines. Bayesian Statistics offers a flexible modeling approach which is attractive for describing the complexity of these datasets. These models often exhibit a likelihood function which is intractable due to the large sample size, high number of parameters, or functional complexity. Approximate Bayesian Computational (ABC) methods provides likelihood-free methods for performing statistical inferences with Bayesian models defined by intractable likelihood functions. The vastity of the literature on ABC methods created a need to review and relate all ABC approaches so that scientists can more readily understand and apply them for their own work. This article provides a unifying review, general representation, and classification of all ABC methods from the view of approximate likelihood theory. This clarifies how ABC methods can be characterized, related, combined, improved, and applied for future research. Possible future research in ABC is then outlined.

We present a selective review of statistical modeling of dynamic networks. We focus on models with latent variables, specifically, the latent space models and the latent class models (or stochastic blockmodels), which investigate both the observed features and the unobserved structure of networks. We begin with an overview of the static models, and then we introduce the dynamic extensions. For each dynamic model, we also discuss its applications that have been studied in the literature, with the data source listed in Appendix. Based on the review, we summarize a list of open problems and challenges in dynamic network modeling with latent variables.

Data on how many scientific findings are reproducible are generally bleak and a wealth of papers have warned against misuses of the $p$-value and resulting false findings in recent years. This paper discusses the question of what we can(not) learn from the $p$-value, which is still widely considered as the gold standard of statistical validity. We aim to provide a non-technical and easily accessible resource for statistical practitioners who wish to spot and avoid misinterpretations and misuses of statistical significance tests. For this purpose, we first classify and describe the most widely discussed (“classical”) pitfalls of significance testing, and review published work on these misuses with a focus on regression-based “confirmatory” study. This includes a description of the single-study bias and a simulation-based illustration of how proper meta-analysis compares to misleading significance counts (“vote counting”). Going beyond the classical pitfalls, we also use simulation to provide intuition that relying on the statistical estimate “$p$-value” as a measure of evidence without considering its sample-to-sample variability falls short of the mark even within an otherwise appropriate interpretation. We conclude with a discussion of the exigencies of informed approaches to statistical inference and corresponding institutional reforms.