Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec

[Anisse Taleb <[e-mail]>]

Hi Monty,

> > As I mentioned earlier, the situation is not as bad as it may seem,
> 
> I questioned Greg on the statistical assumptions he was making, and
> they were ~ sound.  Conservative, in fact, along most axes.
> 

I understand the point that Greg was making, If we want to continue discussing this and taking those arguments as granted then please enlighten me, What are the statistical assumptions? Independence was surely assumed otherwise the equation does not hold. What are the axes you mention? 

> > certainly not a "1 in nonillion" chance of passing all requirements.
> Greg's
> > analysis applies to flipping a coin that has a probability of .90 for
> > "heads" and .10 for "tails." However, listener responses in a MOS test
> are
> > not random - if they are, we throw that listener out of the results.
> 
> ...please be a great deal more descriptive/explicit on what you mean
> here, and please don't dumb it down assuming a non-technical audience
> without basic statistical analysis training.  Because what you just
> said above set off multiple alarm bells.
> 
> Probability distribution functions are probability distrbution functions.
> 

Personally I see no issue with Paul's description. My understanding here, which is also my understanding of Greg's assumptions, is that the outcome of testing a requirement is a coin flip distribution, a.k.a. Bernoulli distribution, the outcome of which is a pass with a probability p=0.9 and fail with a  probability 1-p = 0.1 (I think the actual numbers were an example).  Did I miss something?

Kind regards,
/Anisse