Is a model fitted to data or is data fitted to a model?












17












$begingroup$


Is there a conceptual or procedural difference between fitting a model to data and fitting data to model? An example of the first wording can be seen in https://courses.washington.edu/matlab1/ModelFitting.html, and of the second in https://reference.wolfram.com/applications/eda/FittingDataToLinearModelsByLeast-SquaresTechniques.html.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    +1 I am not impressed by the second link, but I am entertained.
    $endgroup$
    – The Laconic
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Many models fits current data, but data typically fits best one model
    $endgroup$
    – Agnius Vasiliauskas
    19 hours ago
















17












$begingroup$


Is there a conceptual or procedural difference between fitting a model to data and fitting data to model? An example of the first wording can be seen in https://courses.washington.edu/matlab1/ModelFitting.html, and of the second in https://reference.wolfram.com/applications/eda/FittingDataToLinearModelsByLeast-SquaresTechniques.html.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    +1 I am not impressed by the second link, but I am entertained.
    $endgroup$
    – The Laconic
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Many models fits current data, but data typically fits best one model
    $endgroup$
    – Agnius Vasiliauskas
    19 hours ago














17












17








17


2



$begingroup$


Is there a conceptual or procedural difference between fitting a model to data and fitting data to model? An example of the first wording can be seen in https://courses.washington.edu/matlab1/ModelFitting.html, and of the second in https://reference.wolfram.com/applications/eda/FittingDataToLinearModelsByLeast-SquaresTechniques.html.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Is there a conceptual or procedural difference between fitting a model to data and fitting data to model? An example of the first wording can be seen in https://courses.washington.edu/matlab1/ModelFitting.html, and of the second in https://reference.wolfram.com/applications/eda/FittingDataToLinearModelsByLeast-SquaresTechniques.html.







terminology






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









Nick Cox

39k587131




39k587131










asked 2 days ago









enjayesenjayes

1087




1087








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    +1 I am not impressed by the second link, but I am entertained.
    $endgroup$
    – The Laconic
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Many models fits current data, but data typically fits best one model
    $endgroup$
    – Agnius Vasiliauskas
    19 hours ago














  • 7




    $begingroup$
    +1 I am not impressed by the second link, but I am entertained.
    $endgroup$
    – The Laconic
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Many models fits current data, but data typically fits best one model
    $endgroup$
    – Agnius Vasiliauskas
    19 hours ago








7




7




$begingroup$
+1 I am not impressed by the second link, but I am entertained.
$endgroup$
– The Laconic
2 days ago




$begingroup$
+1 I am not impressed by the second link, but I am entertained.
$endgroup$
– The Laconic
2 days ago












$begingroup$
Many models fits current data, but data typically fits best one model
$endgroup$
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
19 hours ago




$begingroup$
Many models fits current data, but data typically fits best one model
$endgroup$
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
19 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















33












$begingroup$

Pretty much every source or person I've ever interacted with except the Wolfram source you linked refers to the process as fitting a model to data. This makes sense, since the model is the dynamic object and the data is static (a.k.a. fixed and constant).



To put a point on it, I like Larry Wasserman's approach to this. In his telling, a statistical model is a collection of distributions. For example, the collection of all normal distributions:



$$ { text{Normal}(mu, sigma) : mu, sigma in R, sigma > 0 } $$



or the set of all Poisson distributions:



$$ { text{Poisson}(lambda) : lambda in R, lambda > 0 } $$



Fitting a distribution to data is any algorithm that combines a statistical model with a set of data (the data is fixed), and chooses exactly one of the distributions from the model as the one that "best" reflects the data.



The model is the thing that changes (sort of): we are collapsing it from an entire collection of possibilities into a single best choice. The data is just the data; nothing happens to it at all.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    15












    $begingroup$

    In the field of Rasch modelling it is common to fit the data to the model. The model is assumed to be correct and it is the analyst's job to find data which conform to it. The Wikipedia article on Rasch contains more details about the how and the why.



    But I agree with others that in general in statistics we fit the model to the data because we can change the model but it is felt to be bad form to select or modify the data.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      7












      $begingroup$

      Typically, the observed data are fixed while the model is mutable (e.g. because parameters are estimated), so it is the model that is made to fit the data, not the other way around. (Usually people mean this case when they say either expression.)



      When people say they fit data to a model I find myself trying to figure out what the heck did they do to the data?.



      [Now if you're transforming data, that would arguably be 'fitting data to a model', but people almost never say that for this case.]






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$









      • 5




        $begingroup$
        Removing outliers would also (arguably) be "fitting data to a model".
        $endgroup$
        – Federico Poloni
        yesterday






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The phrasing might make sense if they're thinking of it as "fitting (data to a model)". That is, you're doing a process of fitting, and that process of fitting starts from data and transforms it to a model. I agree that's a less common/accurate interpretation versus the "(fitting X) to Y" parse, but I put it out there as a rationale as to why someone might logically say it.
        $endgroup$
        – R.M.
        yesterday






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @FedericoPoloni Outliers are usually defined indepedently of the model that you later want to use. So even if we would want to call it fitting data, it would not be a model, but to something else.
        $endgroup$
        – BartoszKP
        yesterday






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        +1. There is a reason it's called "data" - it is what is given, see the Latin origin of the word: latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:dare
        $endgroup$
        – Christoph Hanck
        13 hours ago





















      1












      $begingroup$

      Usually, we assume our data corresponds to the "real world" and making any modifications means we are moving away from modelling the "real world". For example, one needs to take care removing outliers since even if it makes computation nicer, outliers were still part of our data.



      When testing a model or estimating properties of an estimator using bootstrap or other resampling techniques, we may simulate new data using an estimated model and our original data. This makes the assumption that the model is correct, and we are not modifying our original data.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "65"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f399094%2fis-a-model-fitted-to-data-or-is-data-fitted-to-a-model%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        33












        $begingroup$

        Pretty much every source or person I've ever interacted with except the Wolfram source you linked refers to the process as fitting a model to data. This makes sense, since the model is the dynamic object and the data is static (a.k.a. fixed and constant).



        To put a point on it, I like Larry Wasserman's approach to this. In his telling, a statistical model is a collection of distributions. For example, the collection of all normal distributions:



        $$ { text{Normal}(mu, sigma) : mu, sigma in R, sigma > 0 } $$



        or the set of all Poisson distributions:



        $$ { text{Poisson}(lambda) : lambda in R, lambda > 0 } $$



        Fitting a distribution to data is any algorithm that combines a statistical model with a set of data (the data is fixed), and chooses exactly one of the distributions from the model as the one that "best" reflects the data.



        The model is the thing that changes (sort of): we are collapsing it from an entire collection of possibilities into a single best choice. The data is just the data; nothing happens to it at all.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$


















          33












          $begingroup$

          Pretty much every source or person I've ever interacted with except the Wolfram source you linked refers to the process as fitting a model to data. This makes sense, since the model is the dynamic object and the data is static (a.k.a. fixed and constant).



          To put a point on it, I like Larry Wasserman's approach to this. In his telling, a statistical model is a collection of distributions. For example, the collection of all normal distributions:



          $$ { text{Normal}(mu, sigma) : mu, sigma in R, sigma > 0 } $$



          or the set of all Poisson distributions:



          $$ { text{Poisson}(lambda) : lambda in R, lambda > 0 } $$



          Fitting a distribution to data is any algorithm that combines a statistical model with a set of data (the data is fixed), and chooses exactly one of the distributions from the model as the one that "best" reflects the data.



          The model is the thing that changes (sort of): we are collapsing it from an entire collection of possibilities into a single best choice. The data is just the data; nothing happens to it at all.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$
















            33












            33








            33





            $begingroup$

            Pretty much every source or person I've ever interacted with except the Wolfram source you linked refers to the process as fitting a model to data. This makes sense, since the model is the dynamic object and the data is static (a.k.a. fixed and constant).



            To put a point on it, I like Larry Wasserman's approach to this. In his telling, a statistical model is a collection of distributions. For example, the collection of all normal distributions:



            $$ { text{Normal}(mu, sigma) : mu, sigma in R, sigma > 0 } $$



            or the set of all Poisson distributions:



            $$ { text{Poisson}(lambda) : lambda in R, lambda > 0 } $$



            Fitting a distribution to data is any algorithm that combines a statistical model with a set of data (the data is fixed), and chooses exactly one of the distributions from the model as the one that "best" reflects the data.



            The model is the thing that changes (sort of): we are collapsing it from an entire collection of possibilities into a single best choice. The data is just the data; nothing happens to it at all.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Pretty much every source or person I've ever interacted with except the Wolfram source you linked refers to the process as fitting a model to data. This makes sense, since the model is the dynamic object and the data is static (a.k.a. fixed and constant).



            To put a point on it, I like Larry Wasserman's approach to this. In his telling, a statistical model is a collection of distributions. For example, the collection of all normal distributions:



            $$ { text{Normal}(mu, sigma) : mu, sigma in R, sigma > 0 } $$



            or the set of all Poisson distributions:



            $$ { text{Poisson}(lambda) : lambda in R, lambda > 0 } $$



            Fitting a distribution to data is any algorithm that combines a statistical model with a set of data (the data is fixed), and chooses exactly one of the distributions from the model as the one that "best" reflects the data.



            The model is the thing that changes (sort of): we are collapsing it from an entire collection of possibilities into a single best choice. The data is just the data; nothing happens to it at all.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 5 hours ago

























            answered 2 days ago









            Matthew DruryMatthew Drury

            26.8k267107




            26.8k267107

























                15












                $begingroup$

                In the field of Rasch modelling it is common to fit the data to the model. The model is assumed to be correct and it is the analyst's job to find data which conform to it. The Wikipedia article on Rasch contains more details about the how and the why.



                But I agree with others that in general in statistics we fit the model to the data because we can change the model but it is felt to be bad form to select or modify the data.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  15












                  $begingroup$

                  In the field of Rasch modelling it is common to fit the data to the model. The model is assumed to be correct and it is the analyst's job to find data which conform to it. The Wikipedia article on Rasch contains more details about the how and the why.



                  But I agree with others that in general in statistics we fit the model to the data because we can change the model but it is felt to be bad form to select or modify the data.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$
















                    15












                    15








                    15





                    $begingroup$

                    In the field of Rasch modelling it is common to fit the data to the model. The model is assumed to be correct and it is the analyst's job to find data which conform to it. The Wikipedia article on Rasch contains more details about the how and the why.



                    But I agree with others that in general in statistics we fit the model to the data because we can change the model but it is felt to be bad form to select or modify the data.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    In the field of Rasch modelling it is common to fit the data to the model. The model is assumed to be correct and it is the analyst's job to find data which conform to it. The Wikipedia article on Rasch contains more details about the how and the why.



                    But I agree with others that in general in statistics we fit the model to the data because we can change the model but it is felt to be bad form to select or modify the data.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered yesterday









                    mdeweymdewey

                    12.5k72344




                    12.5k72344























                        7












                        $begingroup$

                        Typically, the observed data are fixed while the model is mutable (e.g. because parameters are estimated), so it is the model that is made to fit the data, not the other way around. (Usually people mean this case when they say either expression.)



                        When people say they fit data to a model I find myself trying to figure out what the heck did they do to the data?.



                        [Now if you're transforming data, that would arguably be 'fitting data to a model', but people almost never say that for this case.]






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$









                        • 5




                          $begingroup$
                          Removing outliers would also (arguably) be "fitting data to a model".
                          $endgroup$
                          – Federico Poloni
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          The phrasing might make sense if they're thinking of it as "fitting (data to a model)". That is, you're doing a process of fitting, and that process of fitting starts from data and transforms it to a model. I agree that's a less common/accurate interpretation versus the "(fitting X) to Y" parse, but I put it out there as a rationale as to why someone might logically say it.
                          $endgroup$
                          – R.M.
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          @FedericoPoloni Outliers are usually defined indepedently of the model that you later want to use. So even if we would want to call it fitting data, it would not be a model, but to something else.
                          $endgroup$
                          – BartoszKP
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          +1. There is a reason it's called "data" - it is what is given, see the Latin origin of the word: latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:dare
                          $endgroup$
                          – Christoph Hanck
                          13 hours ago


















                        7












                        $begingroup$

                        Typically, the observed data are fixed while the model is mutable (e.g. because parameters are estimated), so it is the model that is made to fit the data, not the other way around. (Usually people mean this case when they say either expression.)



                        When people say they fit data to a model I find myself trying to figure out what the heck did they do to the data?.



                        [Now if you're transforming data, that would arguably be 'fitting data to a model', but people almost never say that for this case.]






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$









                        • 5




                          $begingroup$
                          Removing outliers would also (arguably) be "fitting data to a model".
                          $endgroup$
                          – Federico Poloni
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          The phrasing might make sense if they're thinking of it as "fitting (data to a model)". That is, you're doing a process of fitting, and that process of fitting starts from data and transforms it to a model. I agree that's a less common/accurate interpretation versus the "(fitting X) to Y" parse, but I put it out there as a rationale as to why someone might logically say it.
                          $endgroup$
                          – R.M.
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          @FedericoPoloni Outliers are usually defined indepedently of the model that you later want to use. So even if we would want to call it fitting data, it would not be a model, but to something else.
                          $endgroup$
                          – BartoszKP
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          +1. There is a reason it's called "data" - it is what is given, see the Latin origin of the word: latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:dare
                          $endgroup$
                          – Christoph Hanck
                          13 hours ago
















                        7












                        7








                        7





                        $begingroup$

                        Typically, the observed data are fixed while the model is mutable (e.g. because parameters are estimated), so it is the model that is made to fit the data, not the other way around. (Usually people mean this case when they say either expression.)



                        When people say they fit data to a model I find myself trying to figure out what the heck did they do to the data?.



                        [Now if you're transforming data, that would arguably be 'fitting data to a model', but people almost never say that for this case.]






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$



                        Typically, the observed data are fixed while the model is mutable (e.g. because parameters are estimated), so it is the model that is made to fit the data, not the other way around. (Usually people mean this case when they say either expression.)



                        When people say they fit data to a model I find myself trying to figure out what the heck did they do to the data?.



                        [Now if you're transforming data, that would arguably be 'fitting data to a model', but people almost never say that for this case.]







                        share|cite|improve this answer












                        share|cite|improve this answer



                        share|cite|improve this answer










                        answered yesterday









                        Glen_bGlen_b

                        214k23416768




                        214k23416768








                        • 5




                          $begingroup$
                          Removing outliers would also (arguably) be "fitting data to a model".
                          $endgroup$
                          – Federico Poloni
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          The phrasing might make sense if they're thinking of it as "fitting (data to a model)". That is, you're doing a process of fitting, and that process of fitting starts from data and transforms it to a model. I agree that's a less common/accurate interpretation versus the "(fitting X) to Y" parse, but I put it out there as a rationale as to why someone might logically say it.
                          $endgroup$
                          – R.M.
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          @FedericoPoloni Outliers are usually defined indepedently of the model that you later want to use. So even if we would want to call it fitting data, it would not be a model, but to something else.
                          $endgroup$
                          – BartoszKP
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          +1. There is a reason it's called "data" - it is what is given, see the Latin origin of the word: latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:dare
                          $endgroup$
                          – Christoph Hanck
                          13 hours ago
















                        • 5




                          $begingroup$
                          Removing outliers would also (arguably) be "fitting data to a model".
                          $endgroup$
                          – Federico Poloni
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          The phrasing might make sense if they're thinking of it as "fitting (data to a model)". That is, you're doing a process of fitting, and that process of fitting starts from data and transforms it to a model. I agree that's a less common/accurate interpretation versus the "(fitting X) to Y" parse, but I put it out there as a rationale as to why someone might logically say it.
                          $endgroup$
                          – R.M.
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          @FedericoPoloni Outliers are usually defined indepedently of the model that you later want to use. So even if we would want to call it fitting data, it would not be a model, but to something else.
                          $endgroup$
                          – BartoszKP
                          yesterday






                        • 1




                          $begingroup$
                          +1. There is a reason it's called "data" - it is what is given, see the Latin origin of the word: latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:dare
                          $endgroup$
                          – Christoph Hanck
                          13 hours ago










                        5




                        5




                        $begingroup$
                        Removing outliers would also (arguably) be "fitting data to a model".
                        $endgroup$
                        – Federico Poloni
                        yesterday




                        $begingroup$
                        Removing outliers would also (arguably) be "fitting data to a model".
                        $endgroup$
                        – Federico Poloni
                        yesterday




                        1




                        1




                        $begingroup$
                        The phrasing might make sense if they're thinking of it as "fitting (data to a model)". That is, you're doing a process of fitting, and that process of fitting starts from data and transforms it to a model. I agree that's a less common/accurate interpretation versus the "(fitting X) to Y" parse, but I put it out there as a rationale as to why someone might logically say it.
                        $endgroup$
                        – R.M.
                        yesterday




                        $begingroup$
                        The phrasing might make sense if they're thinking of it as "fitting (data to a model)". That is, you're doing a process of fitting, and that process of fitting starts from data and transforms it to a model. I agree that's a less common/accurate interpretation versus the "(fitting X) to Y" parse, but I put it out there as a rationale as to why someone might logically say it.
                        $endgroup$
                        – R.M.
                        yesterday




                        1




                        1




                        $begingroup$
                        @FedericoPoloni Outliers are usually defined indepedently of the model that you later want to use. So even if we would want to call it fitting data, it would not be a model, but to something else.
                        $endgroup$
                        – BartoszKP
                        yesterday




                        $begingroup$
                        @FedericoPoloni Outliers are usually defined indepedently of the model that you later want to use. So even if we would want to call it fitting data, it would not be a model, but to something else.
                        $endgroup$
                        – BartoszKP
                        yesterday




                        1




                        1




                        $begingroup$
                        +1. There is a reason it's called "data" - it is what is given, see the Latin origin of the word: latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:dare
                        $endgroup$
                        – Christoph Hanck
                        13 hours ago






                        $begingroup$
                        +1. There is a reason it's called "data" - it is what is given, see the Latin origin of the word: latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:dare
                        $endgroup$
                        – Christoph Hanck
                        13 hours ago













                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        Usually, we assume our data corresponds to the "real world" and making any modifications means we are moving away from modelling the "real world". For example, one needs to take care removing outliers since even if it makes computation nicer, outliers were still part of our data.



                        When testing a model or estimating properties of an estimator using bootstrap or other resampling techniques, we may simulate new data using an estimated model and our original data. This makes the assumption that the model is correct, and we are not modifying our original data.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$


















                          1












                          $begingroup$

                          Usually, we assume our data corresponds to the "real world" and making any modifications means we are moving away from modelling the "real world". For example, one needs to take care removing outliers since even if it makes computation nicer, outliers were still part of our data.



                          When testing a model or estimating properties of an estimator using bootstrap or other resampling techniques, we may simulate new data using an estimated model and our original data. This makes the assumption that the model is correct, and we are not modifying our original data.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$
















                            1












                            1








                            1





                            $begingroup$

                            Usually, we assume our data corresponds to the "real world" and making any modifications means we are moving away from modelling the "real world". For example, one needs to take care removing outliers since even if it makes computation nicer, outliers were still part of our data.



                            When testing a model or estimating properties of an estimator using bootstrap or other resampling techniques, we may simulate new data using an estimated model and our original data. This makes the assumption that the model is correct, and we are not modifying our original data.






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            Usually, we assume our data corresponds to the "real world" and making any modifications means we are moving away from modelling the "real world". For example, one needs to take care removing outliers since even if it makes computation nicer, outliers were still part of our data.



                            When testing a model or estimating properties of an estimator using bootstrap or other resampling techniques, we may simulate new data using an estimated model and our original data. This makes the assumption that the model is correct, and we are not modifying our original data.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered yesterday









                            qwrqwr

                            18011




                            18011






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f399094%2fis-a-model-fitted-to-data-or-is-data-fitted-to-a-model%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                                He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                                Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029