Results for financing applications often arrive in two steps:
- One's personal score (confidential) and some overall statistical information (public).
- Final decision (accepted/rejected).
For projects close to the (unknown) cutoff value, the delay between 1. and 2. can be quite long; it is imposed by the negotiation process with those higher up on the list.
A real-life example I was confronted to are the Marie Curie Fellowships: There were 3300 valid applications for the 2011 Intra-European Fellowships (IEF), out of which 800 fell below a threshold T=70%. Knowing that about 600 projects will be financed and that your score is S (say, 95%), will you make the cut ?
Let us first search for the most probable distribution P(x) obeying the constraints:
A real-life example I was confronted to are the Marie Curie Fellowships: There were 3300 valid applications for the 2011 Intra-European Fellowships (IEF), out of which 800 fell below a threshold T=70%. Knowing that about 600 projects will be financed and that your score is S (say, 95%), will you make the cut ?
Let us first search for the most probable distribution P(x) obeying the constraints:
- P(x) is defined on (0,1) : ∫10P(x)dx=1
- ∫T0P(x)dx=F1=800/3300=0.2424
The problem is easily solved yielding a piecewise constant P(x), with P(x≤T)=F1/T and P(x≥T)=(1−F1)/(1−T) . Defining the success rate above the threshold M=600/(3300−800), we conclude:
- Your application is successful if 1−S1−T≤M. For the numerical values above, this corresponds to S≥Smin=94.5.
- The number of applications below the threshold is in fact irrelevant.
We limited the reasoning to one distribution (the most probable), for which there is a unique answer. However, we understand intuitively that the uncertainty is very large; it would be much more useful to determine completely the success probability g(S). Only for g(S) significantly different from 1/2 can one draw any conclusion from such limited information.
No comments:
Post a Comment