Fair coins tend to land on the same side they started: Evidence from 350,757 flips
Authors:
František Bartoš,
Alexandra Sarafoglou,
Henrik R. Godmann,
Amir Sahrani,
David Klein Leunk,
Pierre Y. Gui,
David Voss,
Kaleem Ullah,
Malte J. Zoubek,
Franziska Nippold,
Frederik Aust,
Felipe F. Vieira,
Chris-Gabriel Islam,
Anton J. Zoubek,
Sara Shabani,
Jonas Petter,
Ingeborg B. Roos,
Adam Finnemann,
Aaron B. Lob,
Madlen F. Hoffstadt,
Jason Nak,
Jill de Ron,
Koen Derks,
Karoline Huth,
Sjoerd Terpstra
, et al. (25 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Many people have flipped coins but few have stopped to ponder the statistical and physical intricacies of the process. In a preregistered study we collected $350{,}757$ coin flips to test the counterintuitive prediction from a physics model of human coin tossing developed by Diaconis, Holmes, and Montgomery (DHM; 2007). The model asserts that when people flip an ordinary coin, it tends to land on…
▽ More
Many people have flipped coins but few have stopped to ponder the statistical and physical intricacies of the process. In a preregistered study we collected $350{,}757$ coin flips to test the counterintuitive prediction from a physics model of human coin tossing developed by Diaconis, Holmes, and Montgomery (DHM; 2007). The model asserts that when people flip an ordinary coin, it tends to land on the same side it started -- DHM estimated the probability of a same-side outcome to be about 51%. Our data lend strong support to this precise prediction: the coins landed on the same side more often than not, $\text{Pr}(\text{same side}) = 0.508$, 95% credible interval (CI) [$0.506$, $0.509$], $\text{BF}_{\text{same-side bias}} = 2359$. Furthermore, the data revealed considerable between-people variation in the degree of this same-side bias. Our data also confirmed the generic prediction that when people flip an ordinary coin -- with the initial side-up randomly determined -- it is equally likely to land heads or tails: $\text{Pr}(\text{heads}) = 0.500$, 95% CI [$0.498$, $0.502$], $\text{BF}_{\text{heads-tails bias}} = 0.182$. Furthermore, this lack of heads-tails bias does not appear to vary across coins. Additional exploratory analyses revealed that the within-people same-side bias decreased as more coins were flipped, an effect that is consistent with the possibility that practice makes people flip coins in a less wobbly fashion. Our data therefore provide strong evidence that when some (but not all) people flip a fair coin, it tends to land on the same side it started. Our data provide compelling statistical support for the DHM physics model of coin tossing.
△ Less
Submitted 2 June, 2024; v1 submitted 6 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
Assessing quality of selection procedures: Lower bound of false positive rate as a function of inter-rater reliability
Authors:
František Bartoš,
Patrícia Martinková
Abstract:
Inter-rater reliability (IRR) is one of the commonly used tools for assessing the quality of ratings from multiple raters. However, applicant selection procedures based on ratings from multiple raters usually result in a binary outcome; the applicant is either selected or not. This final outcome is not considered in IRR, which instead focuses on the ratings of the individual subjects or objects. W…
▽ More
Inter-rater reliability (IRR) is one of the commonly used tools for assessing the quality of ratings from multiple raters. However, applicant selection procedures based on ratings from multiple raters usually result in a binary outcome; the applicant is either selected or not. This final outcome is not considered in IRR, which instead focuses on the ratings of the individual subjects or objects. We outline the connection between the ratings' measurement model (used for IRR) and a binary classification framework. We develop a simple way of approximating the probability of correctly selecting the best applicants which allows us to compute error probabilities of the selection procedure (i.e., false positive and false negative rate) or their lower bounds. We draw connections between the inter-rater reliability and the binary classification metrics, showing that binary classification metrics depend solely on the IRR coefficient and proportion of selected applicants. We assess the performance of the approximation in a simulation study and apply it in an example comparing the reliability of multiple grant peer review selection procedures. We also discuss possible other uses of the explored connections in other contexts, such as educational testing, psychological assessment, and health-related measurement and implement the computations in IRR2FPR R package.
△ Less
Submitted 11 April, 2024; v1 submitted 19 July, 2022;
originally announced July 2022.
