What does the distribution of bootstrapped values in this Cullen and Frey Graph tell me?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







3












$begingroup$


I am trying to find a suitable distribution to describe my data, and as one of the first few steps I created a Cullen and Frey Graph using the descdist command from the fitdistrplus package in GNU R:



library("fitdistrplus")
descdist(df$data, boot=1000)


The data describes the curvature on a point of a surface, with the different observations coming from equivalent points on different objects. Here is the plot for some point on the objects:



enter image description here



For most of the points on the surface, the plot looks very similar to the one shows above (note the bootstrapped points in yellow). However, for certain points it looks quite different, like this:



enter image description here



I would like to know how to interpret this pattern of the bootstrapped points. What does it tell me?



Visual inspection of the atypical points suggests they are in the area where the curvature is almost zero, in case that helps.



Here is my data (output of dput(df$data)) for the upper plot:



c(-0.00076386, 0.045336, 0.014051, -0.041787, 0.023339, 0.014239, 
0.0092057, 0.0084301, 0.020943, 0.01019, -0.0028119, -0.016991,
-0.00098921, -0.033097, 0.0016237, 0.0012549, 0.0019851, 0.016966,
-0.00068282, 0.0061208, 0.0029958, 0.018494, 0.00025555, -3.0299e-05,
-0.00091132, 0.014321, 0.0073784, 0.01479, 0.023929, -0.0063367,
0.0025699, 0.015087, 0.0014208, 0.001467, -0.00020386, 0.0037273,
-0.014093, 0.0011921, -0.014109, 0.022459, 0.0078118, -0.00022082,
0.0010377, 0.001418, 0.0010154, 0.0028933, 0.0019557, 0.0057984,
-0.0008368, 0.0026886, -0.0050151, -0.0012167, 0.0030177, 0.010013,
0.022312, -0.001848, -0.012818, -0.00043589, 0.0053455, 0.0032089,
0.0032384, 0.011193, 0.017151, -0.0066761, -0.0025546, 0.01298,
-0.0042231, 0.0024245, 0.0015398, 0.013608, 0.0039484, 0.00081566,
0.01092, 0.011098, 0.0075705, 0.0038331, 0.014112, 6.1992e-05,
0.003862, 0.0085052, 0.010609, -0.00041915, -0.0046417, -0.00064619,
-0.032221, 0.0043921, 0.0028192, -0.00086485, -0.0062318, -0.011283,
0.027339, 0.0033532, 0.011519, 0.0073512, -0.0017631, 0.0023497,
0.0051281, 0.0046738, 0.0057097, -0.0011277, 0.11261, -0.0027572,
0.0050015, 0.0089537, 2.4617e-07, 0.0025699, -0.0086815, -0.0050313,
-0.033569, -0.0158, 0.0045544, 0.016692, 0.00051091, -0.013249,
0.0030051, 0.0026081, 0.004686, 0.00019892, -0.0039485, -0.0079521,
0.0012888, 0.012825, -0.0047024, -0.009024, 0.0023051, -0.0046861,
0.0039009, -0.0024666, -0.00042277, -0.0023346, -0.0011262, 0.0013752,
-1.813e-05, -0.011235, 0.00092171, 0.0025105, 0.0029965, 0.010461,
0.0051702, -0.0021151, -0.015144, 0.00026214, 0.032263, 0.0077962,
0.012388, -0.0034825, -0.014544, -0.0013833, -0.00096014, -0.0069078,
-3.981e-05, 0.00030865, -0.014931, -1.7708e-05, -0.0061038, 0.0012174,
-0.0024902, -0.0014924, 1.0677e-05, 0.00043018, 0.0050422, 0.021948,
0.0097848, 0.0016898, -0.025803, 0.010538, 0.020389, 0.0071247,
0.0089641, -0.0063912, 0.0029227, -0.023798, -0.005529, -0.01055,
-0.00035134, -0.00039021, -0.010132, 0.0026251, 1.1334e-05, 0.0049617,
-0.00043359, 0.015602, 0.0031481, 0.0011061, 0.033732, 0.03997,
0.0037297, 0.025704, -0.0081762, 0.003853, 0.01115, 0.0033351,
0.0035474, 0.0050837, 0.0055254, -0.012532, 0.0032077, 0.0012311,
0.028543, -0.0077595, -0.017084, 0.0022539, 0.016777, -0.0045712,
0.050084, 0.0015685, -0.011741, 0.0010876, 0.0106, -0.0033016,
5.8685e-05, 0.007614, -0.012613, 0.010031, 0.0058827, 0.019654,
0.0011954, 0.00053537, -0.0059612, 0.057128, 0.0035003, -0.0047389,
0.010864, -0.0020918, 0.0034695, 0.0071228, -0.0094212, 0.01368,
0.0031702, -0.003895, 0.0009593, -0.010492, 0.001612, 0.0032088,
-0.0077312, 0.016688, 0.00012541, -0.0067579, -0.0054365, 0.0021638,
0.0095235, 0.17428, 0.0084727, 0.010209, -0.020409, 0.022679,
0.0095846, -0.00041361, 0.0059134, 0.0043463, -4.8011e-05, 0.0003717,
-0.017807, -0.0085258, 0.013516, -0.011611, -0.0012556, 0.0057282,
-0.00029204, 0.0040735, 0.0079601, 0.0029876, 0.14456, -3.5497e-05,
-0.0016229, -0.00142, 0.0024437, -0.0019965, 0.0047731, -0.0069031,
-0.0024837, -0.0063217, -0.0037023, -0.0011777, 0.014164, 0.032929,
0.0012199, -0.006876, -0.0033327, -0.0049642, 0.00033994, -0.019737,
-0.0006757, -0.010813, 0.0039238, -0.0033379, -0.01205, -0.014741,
0.0008597, 0.00086404, 0.020482, -0.0071236, 0.0081256, 0.01513,
-0.0052792, -0.017796, 3.7647e-05, -0.0011636, 0.0039913, 0.021583,
-0.010653, -0.0020395, 0.011516, 0.0026764, 0.018921, 0.015807,
-0.00035428, 0.0025714, 0.0074256, -0.0079076, 0.00064029, -0.001052,
-0.0049469, 0.007442, -0.012999, 0.011805, 0.0020448, -9.4241e-05,
-0.0035942, 0.010951, -0.0042067, -0.00011169, -0.0010933, -0.0042723,
-6.3584e-05, -0.027255, 0.088819, 0.0018361, 0.013476, 0.0071269
)


And here for the lower:



c(-0.014512, -0.0058534, 0.0087152, -0.0078163, 0.056314, 0.029747, 
-0.052597, -0.012501, -0.0036789, -0.014999, -0.012793, -0.044215,
-0.021863, 0.0087065, -0.011399, -0.019325, 0.013824, 0.0095986,
-0.004078, -0.014264, -0.011927, 0.0011146, -0.0038653, 0.018538,
-0.0041803, -0.0099991, -0.025937, 0.023628, -0.0075893, -0.0151,
-0.0097623, -0.060885, 0.0074398, -0.023108, -0.02431, 0.059038,
-3.2965e-06, 0.017071, 0.043786, -0.010216, -0.0066353, 0.0027318,
-0.019151, 0.0047186, -0.051626, -0.00012959, -0.01279, -0.013684,
0.00094597, 0.014003, 0.01486, -0.037267, -0.014702, -0.01956,
-0.010359, -0.01508, -0.029832, -0.010463, -9.8748e-05, 0.0088553,
-0.0025825, -0.04585, 0.0017103, 0.0010617, -0.014712, -0.058952,
-0.018465, -0.0086677, -0.090302, -0.012687, 0.031989, -0.0010789,
0.0011435, -0.0052397, -0.028672, -0.00047859, 0.0072699, 0.01623,
-0.04801, -0.022326, -0.0015933, -0.038886, -0.025243, -0.0022138,
0.0010459, -0.0057455, -0.019607, 0.0041099, -0.015831, -0.0012497,
-0.14231, 0.0040444, 0.0073692, -0.0049665, 0.0095247, 0.035928,
-0.026798, 0.0020477, 0.0020694, 0.0068247, -0.017784, -0.044672,
-0.054571, -0.0030117, -0.031704, -0.0097623, -0.0066902, -0.075524,
-0.0047395, -0.021042, 0.079442, 0.032306, 0.021644, -0.0014506,
-0.011429, -0.038478, -0.010556, -0.014817, -0.0074413, 0.012451,
-0.02684, 0.0054708, -0.02627, -0.024904, 0.011484, -0.0014307,
-0.0028452, -0.03075, 0.00027497, -0.03346, 0.026292, 0.0030234,
0.0058075, -0.019708, -0.012555, -0.016345, -0.03254, 0.034036,
-0.046767, 0.0074342, -0.00068815, -0.014836, -0.024488, 0.0046096,
-0.042042, -0.0046255, -0.021847, -0.0064215, 0.012622, -0.0026051,
-0.057209, 0.038872, -0.016165, 0.015988, 0.016275, -0.016162,
-0.015021, 0.020844, -0.014098, 0.0031134, 0.00099532, -0.017317,
-0.063793, 0.0018859, 0.01971, -0.032403, -0.0024375, -0.00073467,
-0.0074275, -0.00087284, 0.0083021, 0.014111, -0.018832, -0.00083409,
0.00065538, -0.024792, -0.017424, 0.018622, -0.012342, -0.024214,
-0.00038098, 0.0056994, -0.021689, -0.063995, 0.012623, -0.0038429,
-0.078226, -0.01671, -0.0069796, -0.014817, -0.029802, 0.0042582,
0.001967, 0.0011492, -0.0015149, 0.0071541, -0.014131, -0.042844,
-0.019941, -0.02201, -0.0035923, -0.012501, 0.00031213, -0.0012541,
-0.0075098, -0.047008, -0.026675, -0.021419, -0.010504, 0.0018293,
-0.032401, 0.011153, -0.00094015, -0.031386, -0.031001, 0.0019511,
-0.012967, -0.012911, 0.0074449, 0.0052992, 0.069074, -0.022406,
-0.0028998, -0.0037614, 0.019345, -0.032463, -0.030929, 0.0098452,
-0.01751, -0.018875, -0.015721, -0.003342, -0.01194, -0.005254,
-0.054454, 0.073446, 2.9542e-05, -0.060855, 0.01012, -0.049511,
-0.01284, -0.014399, 0.019037, -0.03636, -0.034068, -0.012705,
-0.03571, -0.018263, -0.0059382, -0.022954, 0.013382, -0.095539,
0.0086911, -0.038144, 0.074835, -0.019483, -0.032716, -0.0025377,
-0.0099221, -0.0057603, 0.018333, 1.3211, 0.020368, 0.041849,
-0.064433, 0.0017635, 0.023663, -0.0012425, -0.13279, 0.017999,
0.031229, 0.058787, -0.037184, -0.016621, 0.011081, 0.011349,
0.0026947, 0.019077, 0.0051954, -0.036936, 0.0045157, -0.023299,
-0.054993, -0.031168, -0.06061, -0.0086002, -0.045094, -0.019699,
-0.0025394, 0.021987, -0.05349, -0.008101, -0.0074635, -0.010358,
-0.068063, 0.013118, 0.013409, -0.018069, 0.0015969, -0.00024499,
0.016927, -0.011481, -0.0053067, 0.0024216, 0.012565, -0.0011296,
0.017863, -0.073312, 0.092955, -0.034487, -0.031434, -0.007217,
-0.038946, -0.0070417, -0.11002, 0.069496, -0.0079777, -0.050645,
-0.0062267, 0.070627, 0.044814, -0.0028551, -0.013993, -0.0094418,
0.037753, -0.0071857, -0.014971, -0.0021806, -0.046116, -0.00089069
)









share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



















    3












    $begingroup$


    I am trying to find a suitable distribution to describe my data, and as one of the first few steps I created a Cullen and Frey Graph using the descdist command from the fitdistrplus package in GNU R:



    library("fitdistrplus")
    descdist(df$data, boot=1000)


    The data describes the curvature on a point of a surface, with the different observations coming from equivalent points on different objects. Here is the plot for some point on the objects:



    enter image description here



    For most of the points on the surface, the plot looks very similar to the one shows above (note the bootstrapped points in yellow). However, for certain points it looks quite different, like this:



    enter image description here



    I would like to know how to interpret this pattern of the bootstrapped points. What does it tell me?



    Visual inspection of the atypical points suggests they are in the area where the curvature is almost zero, in case that helps.



    Here is my data (output of dput(df$data)) for the upper plot:



    c(-0.00076386, 0.045336, 0.014051, -0.041787, 0.023339, 0.014239, 
    0.0092057, 0.0084301, 0.020943, 0.01019, -0.0028119, -0.016991,
    -0.00098921, -0.033097, 0.0016237, 0.0012549, 0.0019851, 0.016966,
    -0.00068282, 0.0061208, 0.0029958, 0.018494, 0.00025555, -3.0299e-05,
    -0.00091132, 0.014321, 0.0073784, 0.01479, 0.023929, -0.0063367,
    0.0025699, 0.015087, 0.0014208, 0.001467, -0.00020386, 0.0037273,
    -0.014093, 0.0011921, -0.014109, 0.022459, 0.0078118, -0.00022082,
    0.0010377, 0.001418, 0.0010154, 0.0028933, 0.0019557, 0.0057984,
    -0.0008368, 0.0026886, -0.0050151, -0.0012167, 0.0030177, 0.010013,
    0.022312, -0.001848, -0.012818, -0.00043589, 0.0053455, 0.0032089,
    0.0032384, 0.011193, 0.017151, -0.0066761, -0.0025546, 0.01298,
    -0.0042231, 0.0024245, 0.0015398, 0.013608, 0.0039484, 0.00081566,
    0.01092, 0.011098, 0.0075705, 0.0038331, 0.014112, 6.1992e-05,
    0.003862, 0.0085052, 0.010609, -0.00041915, -0.0046417, -0.00064619,
    -0.032221, 0.0043921, 0.0028192, -0.00086485, -0.0062318, -0.011283,
    0.027339, 0.0033532, 0.011519, 0.0073512, -0.0017631, 0.0023497,
    0.0051281, 0.0046738, 0.0057097, -0.0011277, 0.11261, -0.0027572,
    0.0050015, 0.0089537, 2.4617e-07, 0.0025699, -0.0086815, -0.0050313,
    -0.033569, -0.0158, 0.0045544, 0.016692, 0.00051091, -0.013249,
    0.0030051, 0.0026081, 0.004686, 0.00019892, -0.0039485, -0.0079521,
    0.0012888, 0.012825, -0.0047024, -0.009024, 0.0023051, -0.0046861,
    0.0039009, -0.0024666, -0.00042277, -0.0023346, -0.0011262, 0.0013752,
    -1.813e-05, -0.011235, 0.00092171, 0.0025105, 0.0029965, 0.010461,
    0.0051702, -0.0021151, -0.015144, 0.00026214, 0.032263, 0.0077962,
    0.012388, -0.0034825, -0.014544, -0.0013833, -0.00096014, -0.0069078,
    -3.981e-05, 0.00030865, -0.014931, -1.7708e-05, -0.0061038, 0.0012174,
    -0.0024902, -0.0014924, 1.0677e-05, 0.00043018, 0.0050422, 0.021948,
    0.0097848, 0.0016898, -0.025803, 0.010538, 0.020389, 0.0071247,
    0.0089641, -0.0063912, 0.0029227, -0.023798, -0.005529, -0.01055,
    -0.00035134, -0.00039021, -0.010132, 0.0026251, 1.1334e-05, 0.0049617,
    -0.00043359, 0.015602, 0.0031481, 0.0011061, 0.033732, 0.03997,
    0.0037297, 0.025704, -0.0081762, 0.003853, 0.01115, 0.0033351,
    0.0035474, 0.0050837, 0.0055254, -0.012532, 0.0032077, 0.0012311,
    0.028543, -0.0077595, -0.017084, 0.0022539, 0.016777, -0.0045712,
    0.050084, 0.0015685, -0.011741, 0.0010876, 0.0106, -0.0033016,
    5.8685e-05, 0.007614, -0.012613, 0.010031, 0.0058827, 0.019654,
    0.0011954, 0.00053537, -0.0059612, 0.057128, 0.0035003, -0.0047389,
    0.010864, -0.0020918, 0.0034695, 0.0071228, -0.0094212, 0.01368,
    0.0031702, -0.003895, 0.0009593, -0.010492, 0.001612, 0.0032088,
    -0.0077312, 0.016688, 0.00012541, -0.0067579, -0.0054365, 0.0021638,
    0.0095235, 0.17428, 0.0084727, 0.010209, -0.020409, 0.022679,
    0.0095846, -0.00041361, 0.0059134, 0.0043463, -4.8011e-05, 0.0003717,
    -0.017807, -0.0085258, 0.013516, -0.011611, -0.0012556, 0.0057282,
    -0.00029204, 0.0040735, 0.0079601, 0.0029876, 0.14456, -3.5497e-05,
    -0.0016229, -0.00142, 0.0024437, -0.0019965, 0.0047731, -0.0069031,
    -0.0024837, -0.0063217, -0.0037023, -0.0011777, 0.014164, 0.032929,
    0.0012199, -0.006876, -0.0033327, -0.0049642, 0.00033994, -0.019737,
    -0.0006757, -0.010813, 0.0039238, -0.0033379, -0.01205, -0.014741,
    0.0008597, 0.00086404, 0.020482, -0.0071236, 0.0081256, 0.01513,
    -0.0052792, -0.017796, 3.7647e-05, -0.0011636, 0.0039913, 0.021583,
    -0.010653, -0.0020395, 0.011516, 0.0026764, 0.018921, 0.015807,
    -0.00035428, 0.0025714, 0.0074256, -0.0079076, 0.00064029, -0.001052,
    -0.0049469, 0.007442, -0.012999, 0.011805, 0.0020448, -9.4241e-05,
    -0.0035942, 0.010951, -0.0042067, -0.00011169, -0.0010933, -0.0042723,
    -6.3584e-05, -0.027255, 0.088819, 0.0018361, 0.013476, 0.0071269
    )


    And here for the lower:



    c(-0.014512, -0.0058534, 0.0087152, -0.0078163, 0.056314, 0.029747, 
    -0.052597, -0.012501, -0.0036789, -0.014999, -0.012793, -0.044215,
    -0.021863, 0.0087065, -0.011399, -0.019325, 0.013824, 0.0095986,
    -0.004078, -0.014264, -0.011927, 0.0011146, -0.0038653, 0.018538,
    -0.0041803, -0.0099991, -0.025937, 0.023628, -0.0075893, -0.0151,
    -0.0097623, -0.060885, 0.0074398, -0.023108, -0.02431, 0.059038,
    -3.2965e-06, 0.017071, 0.043786, -0.010216, -0.0066353, 0.0027318,
    -0.019151, 0.0047186, -0.051626, -0.00012959, -0.01279, -0.013684,
    0.00094597, 0.014003, 0.01486, -0.037267, -0.014702, -0.01956,
    -0.010359, -0.01508, -0.029832, -0.010463, -9.8748e-05, 0.0088553,
    -0.0025825, -0.04585, 0.0017103, 0.0010617, -0.014712, -0.058952,
    -0.018465, -0.0086677, -0.090302, -0.012687, 0.031989, -0.0010789,
    0.0011435, -0.0052397, -0.028672, -0.00047859, 0.0072699, 0.01623,
    -0.04801, -0.022326, -0.0015933, -0.038886, -0.025243, -0.0022138,
    0.0010459, -0.0057455, -0.019607, 0.0041099, -0.015831, -0.0012497,
    -0.14231, 0.0040444, 0.0073692, -0.0049665, 0.0095247, 0.035928,
    -0.026798, 0.0020477, 0.0020694, 0.0068247, -0.017784, -0.044672,
    -0.054571, -0.0030117, -0.031704, -0.0097623, -0.0066902, -0.075524,
    -0.0047395, -0.021042, 0.079442, 0.032306, 0.021644, -0.0014506,
    -0.011429, -0.038478, -0.010556, -0.014817, -0.0074413, 0.012451,
    -0.02684, 0.0054708, -0.02627, -0.024904, 0.011484, -0.0014307,
    -0.0028452, -0.03075, 0.00027497, -0.03346, 0.026292, 0.0030234,
    0.0058075, -0.019708, -0.012555, -0.016345, -0.03254, 0.034036,
    -0.046767, 0.0074342, -0.00068815, -0.014836, -0.024488, 0.0046096,
    -0.042042, -0.0046255, -0.021847, -0.0064215, 0.012622, -0.0026051,
    -0.057209, 0.038872, -0.016165, 0.015988, 0.016275, -0.016162,
    -0.015021, 0.020844, -0.014098, 0.0031134, 0.00099532, -0.017317,
    -0.063793, 0.0018859, 0.01971, -0.032403, -0.0024375, -0.00073467,
    -0.0074275, -0.00087284, 0.0083021, 0.014111, -0.018832, -0.00083409,
    0.00065538, -0.024792, -0.017424, 0.018622, -0.012342, -0.024214,
    -0.00038098, 0.0056994, -0.021689, -0.063995, 0.012623, -0.0038429,
    -0.078226, -0.01671, -0.0069796, -0.014817, -0.029802, 0.0042582,
    0.001967, 0.0011492, -0.0015149, 0.0071541, -0.014131, -0.042844,
    -0.019941, -0.02201, -0.0035923, -0.012501, 0.00031213, -0.0012541,
    -0.0075098, -0.047008, -0.026675, -0.021419, -0.010504, 0.0018293,
    -0.032401, 0.011153, -0.00094015, -0.031386, -0.031001, 0.0019511,
    -0.012967, -0.012911, 0.0074449, 0.0052992, 0.069074, -0.022406,
    -0.0028998, -0.0037614, 0.019345, -0.032463, -0.030929, 0.0098452,
    -0.01751, -0.018875, -0.015721, -0.003342, -0.01194, -0.005254,
    -0.054454, 0.073446, 2.9542e-05, -0.060855, 0.01012, -0.049511,
    -0.01284, -0.014399, 0.019037, -0.03636, -0.034068, -0.012705,
    -0.03571, -0.018263, -0.0059382, -0.022954, 0.013382, -0.095539,
    0.0086911, -0.038144, 0.074835, -0.019483, -0.032716, -0.0025377,
    -0.0099221, -0.0057603, 0.018333, 1.3211, 0.020368, 0.041849,
    -0.064433, 0.0017635, 0.023663, -0.0012425, -0.13279, 0.017999,
    0.031229, 0.058787, -0.037184, -0.016621, 0.011081, 0.011349,
    0.0026947, 0.019077, 0.0051954, -0.036936, 0.0045157, -0.023299,
    -0.054993, -0.031168, -0.06061, -0.0086002, -0.045094, -0.019699,
    -0.0025394, 0.021987, -0.05349, -0.008101, -0.0074635, -0.010358,
    -0.068063, 0.013118, 0.013409, -0.018069, 0.0015969, -0.00024499,
    0.016927, -0.011481, -0.0053067, 0.0024216, 0.012565, -0.0011296,
    0.017863, -0.073312, 0.092955, -0.034487, -0.031434, -0.007217,
    -0.038946, -0.0070417, -0.11002, 0.069496, -0.0079777, -0.050645,
    -0.0062267, 0.070627, 0.044814, -0.0028551, -0.013993, -0.0094418,
    0.037753, -0.0071857, -0.014971, -0.0021806, -0.046116, -0.00089069
    )









    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      I am trying to find a suitable distribution to describe my data, and as one of the first few steps I created a Cullen and Frey Graph using the descdist command from the fitdistrplus package in GNU R:



      library("fitdistrplus")
      descdist(df$data, boot=1000)


      The data describes the curvature on a point of a surface, with the different observations coming from equivalent points on different objects. Here is the plot for some point on the objects:



      enter image description here



      For most of the points on the surface, the plot looks very similar to the one shows above (note the bootstrapped points in yellow). However, for certain points it looks quite different, like this:



      enter image description here



      I would like to know how to interpret this pattern of the bootstrapped points. What does it tell me?



      Visual inspection of the atypical points suggests they are in the area where the curvature is almost zero, in case that helps.



      Here is my data (output of dput(df$data)) for the upper plot:



      c(-0.00076386, 0.045336, 0.014051, -0.041787, 0.023339, 0.014239, 
      0.0092057, 0.0084301, 0.020943, 0.01019, -0.0028119, -0.016991,
      -0.00098921, -0.033097, 0.0016237, 0.0012549, 0.0019851, 0.016966,
      -0.00068282, 0.0061208, 0.0029958, 0.018494, 0.00025555, -3.0299e-05,
      -0.00091132, 0.014321, 0.0073784, 0.01479, 0.023929, -0.0063367,
      0.0025699, 0.015087, 0.0014208, 0.001467, -0.00020386, 0.0037273,
      -0.014093, 0.0011921, -0.014109, 0.022459, 0.0078118, -0.00022082,
      0.0010377, 0.001418, 0.0010154, 0.0028933, 0.0019557, 0.0057984,
      -0.0008368, 0.0026886, -0.0050151, -0.0012167, 0.0030177, 0.010013,
      0.022312, -0.001848, -0.012818, -0.00043589, 0.0053455, 0.0032089,
      0.0032384, 0.011193, 0.017151, -0.0066761, -0.0025546, 0.01298,
      -0.0042231, 0.0024245, 0.0015398, 0.013608, 0.0039484, 0.00081566,
      0.01092, 0.011098, 0.0075705, 0.0038331, 0.014112, 6.1992e-05,
      0.003862, 0.0085052, 0.010609, -0.00041915, -0.0046417, -0.00064619,
      -0.032221, 0.0043921, 0.0028192, -0.00086485, -0.0062318, -0.011283,
      0.027339, 0.0033532, 0.011519, 0.0073512, -0.0017631, 0.0023497,
      0.0051281, 0.0046738, 0.0057097, -0.0011277, 0.11261, -0.0027572,
      0.0050015, 0.0089537, 2.4617e-07, 0.0025699, -0.0086815, -0.0050313,
      -0.033569, -0.0158, 0.0045544, 0.016692, 0.00051091, -0.013249,
      0.0030051, 0.0026081, 0.004686, 0.00019892, -0.0039485, -0.0079521,
      0.0012888, 0.012825, -0.0047024, -0.009024, 0.0023051, -0.0046861,
      0.0039009, -0.0024666, -0.00042277, -0.0023346, -0.0011262, 0.0013752,
      -1.813e-05, -0.011235, 0.00092171, 0.0025105, 0.0029965, 0.010461,
      0.0051702, -0.0021151, -0.015144, 0.00026214, 0.032263, 0.0077962,
      0.012388, -0.0034825, -0.014544, -0.0013833, -0.00096014, -0.0069078,
      -3.981e-05, 0.00030865, -0.014931, -1.7708e-05, -0.0061038, 0.0012174,
      -0.0024902, -0.0014924, 1.0677e-05, 0.00043018, 0.0050422, 0.021948,
      0.0097848, 0.0016898, -0.025803, 0.010538, 0.020389, 0.0071247,
      0.0089641, -0.0063912, 0.0029227, -0.023798, -0.005529, -0.01055,
      -0.00035134, -0.00039021, -0.010132, 0.0026251, 1.1334e-05, 0.0049617,
      -0.00043359, 0.015602, 0.0031481, 0.0011061, 0.033732, 0.03997,
      0.0037297, 0.025704, -0.0081762, 0.003853, 0.01115, 0.0033351,
      0.0035474, 0.0050837, 0.0055254, -0.012532, 0.0032077, 0.0012311,
      0.028543, -0.0077595, -0.017084, 0.0022539, 0.016777, -0.0045712,
      0.050084, 0.0015685, -0.011741, 0.0010876, 0.0106, -0.0033016,
      5.8685e-05, 0.007614, -0.012613, 0.010031, 0.0058827, 0.019654,
      0.0011954, 0.00053537, -0.0059612, 0.057128, 0.0035003, -0.0047389,
      0.010864, -0.0020918, 0.0034695, 0.0071228, -0.0094212, 0.01368,
      0.0031702, -0.003895, 0.0009593, -0.010492, 0.001612, 0.0032088,
      -0.0077312, 0.016688, 0.00012541, -0.0067579, -0.0054365, 0.0021638,
      0.0095235, 0.17428, 0.0084727, 0.010209, -0.020409, 0.022679,
      0.0095846, -0.00041361, 0.0059134, 0.0043463, -4.8011e-05, 0.0003717,
      -0.017807, -0.0085258, 0.013516, -0.011611, -0.0012556, 0.0057282,
      -0.00029204, 0.0040735, 0.0079601, 0.0029876, 0.14456, -3.5497e-05,
      -0.0016229, -0.00142, 0.0024437, -0.0019965, 0.0047731, -0.0069031,
      -0.0024837, -0.0063217, -0.0037023, -0.0011777, 0.014164, 0.032929,
      0.0012199, -0.006876, -0.0033327, -0.0049642, 0.00033994, -0.019737,
      -0.0006757, -0.010813, 0.0039238, -0.0033379, -0.01205, -0.014741,
      0.0008597, 0.00086404, 0.020482, -0.0071236, 0.0081256, 0.01513,
      -0.0052792, -0.017796, 3.7647e-05, -0.0011636, 0.0039913, 0.021583,
      -0.010653, -0.0020395, 0.011516, 0.0026764, 0.018921, 0.015807,
      -0.00035428, 0.0025714, 0.0074256, -0.0079076, 0.00064029, -0.001052,
      -0.0049469, 0.007442, -0.012999, 0.011805, 0.0020448, -9.4241e-05,
      -0.0035942, 0.010951, -0.0042067, -0.00011169, -0.0010933, -0.0042723,
      -6.3584e-05, -0.027255, 0.088819, 0.0018361, 0.013476, 0.0071269
      )


      And here for the lower:



      c(-0.014512, -0.0058534, 0.0087152, -0.0078163, 0.056314, 0.029747, 
      -0.052597, -0.012501, -0.0036789, -0.014999, -0.012793, -0.044215,
      -0.021863, 0.0087065, -0.011399, -0.019325, 0.013824, 0.0095986,
      -0.004078, -0.014264, -0.011927, 0.0011146, -0.0038653, 0.018538,
      -0.0041803, -0.0099991, -0.025937, 0.023628, -0.0075893, -0.0151,
      -0.0097623, -0.060885, 0.0074398, -0.023108, -0.02431, 0.059038,
      -3.2965e-06, 0.017071, 0.043786, -0.010216, -0.0066353, 0.0027318,
      -0.019151, 0.0047186, -0.051626, -0.00012959, -0.01279, -0.013684,
      0.00094597, 0.014003, 0.01486, -0.037267, -0.014702, -0.01956,
      -0.010359, -0.01508, -0.029832, -0.010463, -9.8748e-05, 0.0088553,
      -0.0025825, -0.04585, 0.0017103, 0.0010617, -0.014712, -0.058952,
      -0.018465, -0.0086677, -0.090302, -0.012687, 0.031989, -0.0010789,
      0.0011435, -0.0052397, -0.028672, -0.00047859, 0.0072699, 0.01623,
      -0.04801, -0.022326, -0.0015933, -0.038886, -0.025243, -0.0022138,
      0.0010459, -0.0057455, -0.019607, 0.0041099, -0.015831, -0.0012497,
      -0.14231, 0.0040444, 0.0073692, -0.0049665, 0.0095247, 0.035928,
      -0.026798, 0.0020477, 0.0020694, 0.0068247, -0.017784, -0.044672,
      -0.054571, -0.0030117, -0.031704, -0.0097623, -0.0066902, -0.075524,
      -0.0047395, -0.021042, 0.079442, 0.032306, 0.021644, -0.0014506,
      -0.011429, -0.038478, -0.010556, -0.014817, -0.0074413, 0.012451,
      -0.02684, 0.0054708, -0.02627, -0.024904, 0.011484, -0.0014307,
      -0.0028452, -0.03075, 0.00027497, -0.03346, 0.026292, 0.0030234,
      0.0058075, -0.019708, -0.012555, -0.016345, -0.03254, 0.034036,
      -0.046767, 0.0074342, -0.00068815, -0.014836, -0.024488, 0.0046096,
      -0.042042, -0.0046255, -0.021847, -0.0064215, 0.012622, -0.0026051,
      -0.057209, 0.038872, -0.016165, 0.015988, 0.016275, -0.016162,
      -0.015021, 0.020844, -0.014098, 0.0031134, 0.00099532, -0.017317,
      -0.063793, 0.0018859, 0.01971, -0.032403, -0.0024375, -0.00073467,
      -0.0074275, -0.00087284, 0.0083021, 0.014111, -0.018832, -0.00083409,
      0.00065538, -0.024792, -0.017424, 0.018622, -0.012342, -0.024214,
      -0.00038098, 0.0056994, -0.021689, -0.063995, 0.012623, -0.0038429,
      -0.078226, -0.01671, -0.0069796, -0.014817, -0.029802, 0.0042582,
      0.001967, 0.0011492, -0.0015149, 0.0071541, -0.014131, -0.042844,
      -0.019941, -0.02201, -0.0035923, -0.012501, 0.00031213, -0.0012541,
      -0.0075098, -0.047008, -0.026675, -0.021419, -0.010504, 0.0018293,
      -0.032401, 0.011153, -0.00094015, -0.031386, -0.031001, 0.0019511,
      -0.012967, -0.012911, 0.0074449, 0.0052992, 0.069074, -0.022406,
      -0.0028998, -0.0037614, 0.019345, -0.032463, -0.030929, 0.0098452,
      -0.01751, -0.018875, -0.015721, -0.003342, -0.01194, -0.005254,
      -0.054454, 0.073446, 2.9542e-05, -0.060855, 0.01012, -0.049511,
      -0.01284, -0.014399, 0.019037, -0.03636, -0.034068, -0.012705,
      -0.03571, -0.018263, -0.0059382, -0.022954, 0.013382, -0.095539,
      0.0086911, -0.038144, 0.074835, -0.019483, -0.032716, -0.0025377,
      -0.0099221, -0.0057603, 0.018333, 1.3211, 0.020368, 0.041849,
      -0.064433, 0.0017635, 0.023663, -0.0012425, -0.13279, 0.017999,
      0.031229, 0.058787, -0.037184, -0.016621, 0.011081, 0.011349,
      0.0026947, 0.019077, 0.0051954, -0.036936, 0.0045157, -0.023299,
      -0.054993, -0.031168, -0.06061, -0.0086002, -0.045094, -0.019699,
      -0.0025394, 0.021987, -0.05349, -0.008101, -0.0074635, -0.010358,
      -0.068063, 0.013118, 0.013409, -0.018069, 0.0015969, -0.00024499,
      0.016927, -0.011481, -0.0053067, 0.0024216, 0.012565, -0.0011296,
      0.017863, -0.073312, 0.092955, -0.034487, -0.031434, -0.007217,
      -0.038946, -0.0070417, -0.11002, 0.069496, -0.0079777, -0.050645,
      -0.0062267, 0.070627, 0.044814, -0.0028551, -0.013993, -0.0094418,
      0.037753, -0.0071857, -0.014971, -0.0021806, -0.046116, -0.00089069
      )









      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I am trying to find a suitable distribution to describe my data, and as one of the first few steps I created a Cullen and Frey Graph using the descdist command from the fitdistrplus package in GNU R:



      library("fitdistrplus")
      descdist(df$data, boot=1000)


      The data describes the curvature on a point of a surface, with the different observations coming from equivalent points on different objects. Here is the plot for some point on the objects:



      enter image description here



      For most of the points on the surface, the plot looks very similar to the one shows above (note the bootstrapped points in yellow). However, for certain points it looks quite different, like this:



      enter image description here



      I would like to know how to interpret this pattern of the bootstrapped points. What does it tell me?



      Visual inspection of the atypical points suggests they are in the area where the curvature is almost zero, in case that helps.



      Here is my data (output of dput(df$data)) for the upper plot:



      c(-0.00076386, 0.045336, 0.014051, -0.041787, 0.023339, 0.014239, 
      0.0092057, 0.0084301, 0.020943, 0.01019, -0.0028119, -0.016991,
      -0.00098921, -0.033097, 0.0016237, 0.0012549, 0.0019851, 0.016966,
      -0.00068282, 0.0061208, 0.0029958, 0.018494, 0.00025555, -3.0299e-05,
      -0.00091132, 0.014321, 0.0073784, 0.01479, 0.023929, -0.0063367,
      0.0025699, 0.015087, 0.0014208, 0.001467, -0.00020386, 0.0037273,
      -0.014093, 0.0011921, -0.014109, 0.022459, 0.0078118, -0.00022082,
      0.0010377, 0.001418, 0.0010154, 0.0028933, 0.0019557, 0.0057984,
      -0.0008368, 0.0026886, -0.0050151, -0.0012167, 0.0030177, 0.010013,
      0.022312, -0.001848, -0.012818, -0.00043589, 0.0053455, 0.0032089,
      0.0032384, 0.011193, 0.017151, -0.0066761, -0.0025546, 0.01298,
      -0.0042231, 0.0024245, 0.0015398, 0.013608, 0.0039484, 0.00081566,
      0.01092, 0.011098, 0.0075705, 0.0038331, 0.014112, 6.1992e-05,
      0.003862, 0.0085052, 0.010609, -0.00041915, -0.0046417, -0.00064619,
      -0.032221, 0.0043921, 0.0028192, -0.00086485, -0.0062318, -0.011283,
      0.027339, 0.0033532, 0.011519, 0.0073512, -0.0017631, 0.0023497,
      0.0051281, 0.0046738, 0.0057097, -0.0011277, 0.11261, -0.0027572,
      0.0050015, 0.0089537, 2.4617e-07, 0.0025699, -0.0086815, -0.0050313,
      -0.033569, -0.0158, 0.0045544, 0.016692, 0.00051091, -0.013249,
      0.0030051, 0.0026081, 0.004686, 0.00019892, -0.0039485, -0.0079521,
      0.0012888, 0.012825, -0.0047024, -0.009024, 0.0023051, -0.0046861,
      0.0039009, -0.0024666, -0.00042277, -0.0023346, -0.0011262, 0.0013752,
      -1.813e-05, -0.011235, 0.00092171, 0.0025105, 0.0029965, 0.010461,
      0.0051702, -0.0021151, -0.015144, 0.00026214, 0.032263, 0.0077962,
      0.012388, -0.0034825, -0.014544, -0.0013833, -0.00096014, -0.0069078,
      -3.981e-05, 0.00030865, -0.014931, -1.7708e-05, -0.0061038, 0.0012174,
      -0.0024902, -0.0014924, 1.0677e-05, 0.00043018, 0.0050422, 0.021948,
      0.0097848, 0.0016898, -0.025803, 0.010538, 0.020389, 0.0071247,
      0.0089641, -0.0063912, 0.0029227, -0.023798, -0.005529, -0.01055,
      -0.00035134, -0.00039021, -0.010132, 0.0026251, 1.1334e-05, 0.0049617,
      -0.00043359, 0.015602, 0.0031481, 0.0011061, 0.033732, 0.03997,
      0.0037297, 0.025704, -0.0081762, 0.003853, 0.01115, 0.0033351,
      0.0035474, 0.0050837, 0.0055254, -0.012532, 0.0032077, 0.0012311,
      0.028543, -0.0077595, -0.017084, 0.0022539, 0.016777, -0.0045712,
      0.050084, 0.0015685, -0.011741, 0.0010876, 0.0106, -0.0033016,
      5.8685e-05, 0.007614, -0.012613, 0.010031, 0.0058827, 0.019654,
      0.0011954, 0.00053537, -0.0059612, 0.057128, 0.0035003, -0.0047389,
      0.010864, -0.0020918, 0.0034695, 0.0071228, -0.0094212, 0.01368,
      0.0031702, -0.003895, 0.0009593, -0.010492, 0.001612, 0.0032088,
      -0.0077312, 0.016688, 0.00012541, -0.0067579, -0.0054365, 0.0021638,
      0.0095235, 0.17428, 0.0084727, 0.010209, -0.020409, 0.022679,
      0.0095846, -0.00041361, 0.0059134, 0.0043463, -4.8011e-05, 0.0003717,
      -0.017807, -0.0085258, 0.013516, -0.011611, -0.0012556, 0.0057282,
      -0.00029204, 0.0040735, 0.0079601, 0.0029876, 0.14456, -3.5497e-05,
      -0.0016229, -0.00142, 0.0024437, -0.0019965, 0.0047731, -0.0069031,
      -0.0024837, -0.0063217, -0.0037023, -0.0011777, 0.014164, 0.032929,
      0.0012199, -0.006876, -0.0033327, -0.0049642, 0.00033994, -0.019737,
      -0.0006757, -0.010813, 0.0039238, -0.0033379, -0.01205, -0.014741,
      0.0008597, 0.00086404, 0.020482, -0.0071236, 0.0081256, 0.01513,
      -0.0052792, -0.017796, 3.7647e-05, -0.0011636, 0.0039913, 0.021583,
      -0.010653, -0.0020395, 0.011516, 0.0026764, 0.018921, 0.015807,
      -0.00035428, 0.0025714, 0.0074256, -0.0079076, 0.00064029, -0.001052,
      -0.0049469, 0.007442, -0.012999, 0.011805, 0.0020448, -9.4241e-05,
      -0.0035942, 0.010951, -0.0042067, -0.00011169, -0.0010933, -0.0042723,
      -6.3584e-05, -0.027255, 0.088819, 0.0018361, 0.013476, 0.0071269
      )


      And here for the lower:



      c(-0.014512, -0.0058534, 0.0087152, -0.0078163, 0.056314, 0.029747, 
      -0.052597, -0.012501, -0.0036789, -0.014999, -0.012793, -0.044215,
      -0.021863, 0.0087065, -0.011399, -0.019325, 0.013824, 0.0095986,
      -0.004078, -0.014264, -0.011927, 0.0011146, -0.0038653, 0.018538,
      -0.0041803, -0.0099991, -0.025937, 0.023628, -0.0075893, -0.0151,
      -0.0097623, -0.060885, 0.0074398, -0.023108, -0.02431, 0.059038,
      -3.2965e-06, 0.017071, 0.043786, -0.010216, -0.0066353, 0.0027318,
      -0.019151, 0.0047186, -0.051626, -0.00012959, -0.01279, -0.013684,
      0.00094597, 0.014003, 0.01486, -0.037267, -0.014702, -0.01956,
      -0.010359, -0.01508, -0.029832, -0.010463, -9.8748e-05, 0.0088553,
      -0.0025825, -0.04585, 0.0017103, 0.0010617, -0.014712, -0.058952,
      -0.018465, -0.0086677, -0.090302, -0.012687, 0.031989, -0.0010789,
      0.0011435, -0.0052397, -0.028672, -0.00047859, 0.0072699, 0.01623,
      -0.04801, -0.022326, -0.0015933, -0.038886, -0.025243, -0.0022138,
      0.0010459, -0.0057455, -0.019607, 0.0041099, -0.015831, -0.0012497,
      -0.14231, 0.0040444, 0.0073692, -0.0049665, 0.0095247, 0.035928,
      -0.026798, 0.0020477, 0.0020694, 0.0068247, -0.017784, -0.044672,
      -0.054571, -0.0030117, -0.031704, -0.0097623, -0.0066902, -0.075524,
      -0.0047395, -0.021042, 0.079442, 0.032306, 0.021644, -0.0014506,
      -0.011429, -0.038478, -0.010556, -0.014817, -0.0074413, 0.012451,
      -0.02684, 0.0054708, -0.02627, -0.024904, 0.011484, -0.0014307,
      -0.0028452, -0.03075, 0.00027497, -0.03346, 0.026292, 0.0030234,
      0.0058075, -0.019708, -0.012555, -0.016345, -0.03254, 0.034036,
      -0.046767, 0.0074342, -0.00068815, -0.014836, -0.024488, 0.0046096,
      -0.042042, -0.0046255, -0.021847, -0.0064215, 0.012622, -0.0026051,
      -0.057209, 0.038872, -0.016165, 0.015988, 0.016275, -0.016162,
      -0.015021, 0.020844, -0.014098, 0.0031134, 0.00099532, -0.017317,
      -0.063793, 0.0018859, 0.01971, -0.032403, -0.0024375, -0.00073467,
      -0.0074275, -0.00087284, 0.0083021, 0.014111, -0.018832, -0.00083409,
      0.00065538, -0.024792, -0.017424, 0.018622, -0.012342, -0.024214,
      -0.00038098, 0.0056994, -0.021689, -0.063995, 0.012623, -0.0038429,
      -0.078226, -0.01671, -0.0069796, -0.014817, -0.029802, 0.0042582,
      0.001967, 0.0011492, -0.0015149, 0.0071541, -0.014131, -0.042844,
      -0.019941, -0.02201, -0.0035923, -0.012501, 0.00031213, -0.0012541,
      -0.0075098, -0.047008, -0.026675, -0.021419, -0.010504, 0.0018293,
      -0.032401, 0.011153, -0.00094015, -0.031386, -0.031001, 0.0019511,
      -0.012967, -0.012911, 0.0074449, 0.0052992, 0.069074, -0.022406,
      -0.0028998, -0.0037614, 0.019345, -0.032463, -0.030929, 0.0098452,
      -0.01751, -0.018875, -0.015721, -0.003342, -0.01194, -0.005254,
      -0.054454, 0.073446, 2.9542e-05, -0.060855, 0.01012, -0.049511,
      -0.01284, -0.014399, 0.019037, -0.03636, -0.034068, -0.012705,
      -0.03571, -0.018263, -0.0059382, -0.022954, 0.013382, -0.095539,
      0.0086911, -0.038144, 0.074835, -0.019483, -0.032716, -0.0025377,
      -0.0099221, -0.0057603, 0.018333, 1.3211, 0.020368, 0.041849,
      -0.064433, 0.0017635, 0.023663, -0.0012425, -0.13279, 0.017999,
      0.031229, 0.058787, -0.037184, -0.016621, 0.011081, 0.011349,
      0.0026947, 0.019077, 0.0051954, -0.036936, 0.0045157, -0.023299,
      -0.054993, -0.031168, -0.06061, -0.0086002, -0.045094, -0.019699,
      -0.0025394, 0.021987, -0.05349, -0.008101, -0.0074635, -0.010358,
      -0.068063, 0.013118, 0.013409, -0.018069, 0.0015969, -0.00024499,
      0.016927, -0.011481, -0.0053067, 0.0024216, 0.012565, -0.0011296,
      0.017863, -0.073312, 0.092955, -0.034487, -0.031434, -0.007217,
      -0.038946, -0.0070417, -0.11002, 0.069496, -0.0079777, -0.050645,
      -0.0062267, 0.070627, 0.044814, -0.0028551, -0.013993, -0.0094418,
      0.037753, -0.0071857, -0.014971, -0.0021806, -0.046116, -0.00089069
      )






      r data-visualization distribution-identification






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Apr 19 at 13:04









      Wayne

      16.5k23976




      16.5k23976










      asked Apr 19 at 12:00









      John SilverJohn Silver

      306




      306






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          The idea of this bootstrapping is to get a sense of the sampling distribution of the skewness and kurtosis by making use of the bootstrap; the ultimate point, presumably, is to get a sense of which regions of the Pearson diagram the sample is consistent with being an observation from. (However, simulation experiments I've done in the past suggest it's not all that useful a guide even when the sample comes from a Pearson distribution -- the true sampling distribution often tends to look rather different from the boostrapped one. A more sophisticated bootstrap approach would perhaps do better.)



          Whether bootstrapping or not, I would urge caution when using such plots for selecting between distributions in general.





          In relation to your second plot, you have a single extreme outlier.



          As mentioned the orange points are generated by bootstrapping -- resampling the data with replacement.



          If you get a resample with that outlier present exactly once you get a point from the cloud that surrounds the large blue dot.



          If you get a sample with that outlier present exactly twice you get a point from the next smaller cloud closer to the origin.



          If you get a sample with that outlier present exactly three times you get a point from the next smaller cloud still closer to the origin, and so on; each such cloud has fewer points in it (naturally).



          If it is sampled zero times you get a point from the tight orange cloud (/blob) at the far top left of the plot (near all the markers for the various distributions there)



          The probability of the extreme outlier point showing up $x$ times is essentially $P(X=x)$ for a Poisson(1); with 1000 such points you should normally expect to see 6 or 7 such point clouds (there looks to be 7 here).



          This plot is pretty much just telling you "there's one extreme outlier".



          That it was caused by an outlier was fairly obvious by looking at the plot (on looking at the plot, my first reaction was 'a big outlier would do that') but if you look at the data you can see it easily. In R if you put the data into y then:



          plot(density(y))
          rug(y)


          will show the outlier up near 1.32.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot, this answers my question, so I have accepted it.
            $endgroup$
            – John Silver
            Apr 19 at 20:48



















          2












          $begingroup$

          [My previous answer had a fatal mistake in it, so I deleted it and made a new one.]



          Here's a more basic plot instead of your fancy plot. The black line is the density plot your first dataset, and the red line is of your second. (Note that the first dataset is more compact, so its density goes off the top.)



          You see at least 4 discretized points in your first dataset, which density has turned into humps. You see an odd hump in your second dataset near the first dataset's four -- which might be a truncation of similar values -- and then a bump way out on the right and a bump to the left.



          Do you know how your data is captured? For example, are you scanning objects with software that places points farther apart in areas of low curvature? (This might be the result if your objects are captured as quadrangles, with adjacent quadrangles that have a low angle between them joined into a single quadrangle? Or it might be that your capture process is driven by changes in reflectivity -- i.e. curvature -- that must exceed a threshold before a data point is recorded?)



          My guess as to your original strange graph for your second dataset is that the bump way out on the right caused things to scale oddly, so you got a discretized graph.



          Your raw data appears to be a mixture of data generation processes and data capture artifacts (which might include truncation, censoring, discretization, and noise). So the question is: do you want a single distribution for all of your data as captured, or for your data after accounting for artifacts, or something else?



          Trying to come up with a single distribution for a mixture of process results is usually a bad idea.



          enter image description here






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot for your very helpful answer. While the answer by Glen_b more directly answers the question about the plot, your answer helps with my analysis. And you are right in your assumptions: the curvature data is from a mesh of the objects, consisting of triangles. The mesh algorithm places more vertices in areas with higher curvature, I guess. It is very likely that it contains noise, as the meshes were generated from noisy 3D image data. I am not interested in the noise and would indeed be very interested in filtering it, but am unsure how. I could threshold some, but not all.
            $endgroup$
            – John Silver
            Apr 19 at 20:54














          Your Answer








          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%2f403952%2fwhat-does-the-distribution-of-bootstrapped-values-in-this-cullen-and-frey-graph%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2












          $begingroup$

          The idea of this bootstrapping is to get a sense of the sampling distribution of the skewness and kurtosis by making use of the bootstrap; the ultimate point, presumably, is to get a sense of which regions of the Pearson diagram the sample is consistent with being an observation from. (However, simulation experiments I've done in the past suggest it's not all that useful a guide even when the sample comes from a Pearson distribution -- the true sampling distribution often tends to look rather different from the boostrapped one. A more sophisticated bootstrap approach would perhaps do better.)



          Whether bootstrapping or not, I would urge caution when using such plots for selecting between distributions in general.





          In relation to your second plot, you have a single extreme outlier.



          As mentioned the orange points are generated by bootstrapping -- resampling the data with replacement.



          If you get a resample with that outlier present exactly once you get a point from the cloud that surrounds the large blue dot.



          If you get a sample with that outlier present exactly twice you get a point from the next smaller cloud closer to the origin.



          If you get a sample with that outlier present exactly three times you get a point from the next smaller cloud still closer to the origin, and so on; each such cloud has fewer points in it (naturally).



          If it is sampled zero times you get a point from the tight orange cloud (/blob) at the far top left of the plot (near all the markers for the various distributions there)



          The probability of the extreme outlier point showing up $x$ times is essentially $P(X=x)$ for a Poisson(1); with 1000 such points you should normally expect to see 6 or 7 such point clouds (there looks to be 7 here).



          This plot is pretty much just telling you "there's one extreme outlier".



          That it was caused by an outlier was fairly obvious by looking at the plot (on looking at the plot, my first reaction was 'a big outlier would do that') but if you look at the data you can see it easily. In R if you put the data into y then:



          plot(density(y))
          rug(y)


          will show the outlier up near 1.32.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot, this answers my question, so I have accepted it.
            $endgroup$
            – John Silver
            Apr 19 at 20:48
















          2












          $begingroup$

          The idea of this bootstrapping is to get a sense of the sampling distribution of the skewness and kurtosis by making use of the bootstrap; the ultimate point, presumably, is to get a sense of which regions of the Pearson diagram the sample is consistent with being an observation from. (However, simulation experiments I've done in the past suggest it's not all that useful a guide even when the sample comes from a Pearson distribution -- the true sampling distribution often tends to look rather different from the boostrapped one. A more sophisticated bootstrap approach would perhaps do better.)



          Whether bootstrapping or not, I would urge caution when using such plots for selecting between distributions in general.





          In relation to your second plot, you have a single extreme outlier.



          As mentioned the orange points are generated by bootstrapping -- resampling the data with replacement.



          If you get a resample with that outlier present exactly once you get a point from the cloud that surrounds the large blue dot.



          If you get a sample with that outlier present exactly twice you get a point from the next smaller cloud closer to the origin.



          If you get a sample with that outlier present exactly three times you get a point from the next smaller cloud still closer to the origin, and so on; each such cloud has fewer points in it (naturally).



          If it is sampled zero times you get a point from the tight orange cloud (/blob) at the far top left of the plot (near all the markers for the various distributions there)



          The probability of the extreme outlier point showing up $x$ times is essentially $P(X=x)$ for a Poisson(1); with 1000 such points you should normally expect to see 6 or 7 such point clouds (there looks to be 7 here).



          This plot is pretty much just telling you "there's one extreme outlier".



          That it was caused by an outlier was fairly obvious by looking at the plot (on looking at the plot, my first reaction was 'a big outlier would do that') but if you look at the data you can see it easily. In R if you put the data into y then:



          plot(density(y))
          rug(y)


          will show the outlier up near 1.32.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot, this answers my question, so I have accepted it.
            $endgroup$
            – John Silver
            Apr 19 at 20:48














          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          The idea of this bootstrapping is to get a sense of the sampling distribution of the skewness and kurtosis by making use of the bootstrap; the ultimate point, presumably, is to get a sense of which regions of the Pearson diagram the sample is consistent with being an observation from. (However, simulation experiments I've done in the past suggest it's not all that useful a guide even when the sample comes from a Pearson distribution -- the true sampling distribution often tends to look rather different from the boostrapped one. A more sophisticated bootstrap approach would perhaps do better.)



          Whether bootstrapping or not, I would urge caution when using such plots for selecting between distributions in general.





          In relation to your second plot, you have a single extreme outlier.



          As mentioned the orange points are generated by bootstrapping -- resampling the data with replacement.



          If you get a resample with that outlier present exactly once you get a point from the cloud that surrounds the large blue dot.



          If you get a sample with that outlier present exactly twice you get a point from the next smaller cloud closer to the origin.



          If you get a sample with that outlier present exactly three times you get a point from the next smaller cloud still closer to the origin, and so on; each such cloud has fewer points in it (naturally).



          If it is sampled zero times you get a point from the tight orange cloud (/blob) at the far top left of the plot (near all the markers for the various distributions there)



          The probability of the extreme outlier point showing up $x$ times is essentially $P(X=x)$ for a Poisson(1); with 1000 such points you should normally expect to see 6 or 7 such point clouds (there looks to be 7 here).



          This plot is pretty much just telling you "there's one extreme outlier".



          That it was caused by an outlier was fairly obvious by looking at the plot (on looking at the plot, my first reaction was 'a big outlier would do that') but if you look at the data you can see it easily. In R if you put the data into y then:



          plot(density(y))
          rug(y)


          will show the outlier up near 1.32.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          The idea of this bootstrapping is to get a sense of the sampling distribution of the skewness and kurtosis by making use of the bootstrap; the ultimate point, presumably, is to get a sense of which regions of the Pearson diagram the sample is consistent with being an observation from. (However, simulation experiments I've done in the past suggest it's not all that useful a guide even when the sample comes from a Pearson distribution -- the true sampling distribution often tends to look rather different from the boostrapped one. A more sophisticated bootstrap approach would perhaps do better.)



          Whether bootstrapping or not, I would urge caution when using such plots for selecting between distributions in general.





          In relation to your second plot, you have a single extreme outlier.



          As mentioned the orange points are generated by bootstrapping -- resampling the data with replacement.



          If you get a resample with that outlier present exactly once you get a point from the cloud that surrounds the large blue dot.



          If you get a sample with that outlier present exactly twice you get a point from the next smaller cloud closer to the origin.



          If you get a sample with that outlier present exactly three times you get a point from the next smaller cloud still closer to the origin, and so on; each such cloud has fewer points in it (naturally).



          If it is sampled zero times you get a point from the tight orange cloud (/blob) at the far top left of the plot (near all the markers for the various distributions there)



          The probability of the extreme outlier point showing up $x$ times is essentially $P(X=x)$ for a Poisson(1); with 1000 such points you should normally expect to see 6 or 7 such point clouds (there looks to be 7 here).



          This plot is pretty much just telling you "there's one extreme outlier".



          That it was caused by an outlier was fairly obvious by looking at the plot (on looking at the plot, my first reaction was 'a big outlier would do that') but if you look at the data you can see it easily. In R if you put the data into y then:



          plot(density(y))
          rug(y)


          will show the outlier up near 1.32.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Apr 20 at 0:58

























          answered Apr 19 at 16:05









          Glen_bGlen_b

          217k23422777




          217k23422777












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot, this answers my question, so I have accepted it.
            $endgroup$
            – John Silver
            Apr 19 at 20:48


















          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot, this answers my question, so I have accepted it.
            $endgroup$
            – John Silver
            Apr 19 at 20:48
















          $begingroup$
          Thanks a lot, this answers my question, so I have accepted it.
          $endgroup$
          – John Silver
          Apr 19 at 20:48




          $begingroup$
          Thanks a lot, this answers my question, so I have accepted it.
          $endgroup$
          – John Silver
          Apr 19 at 20:48













          2












          $begingroup$

          [My previous answer had a fatal mistake in it, so I deleted it and made a new one.]



          Here's a more basic plot instead of your fancy plot. The black line is the density plot your first dataset, and the red line is of your second. (Note that the first dataset is more compact, so its density goes off the top.)



          You see at least 4 discretized points in your first dataset, which density has turned into humps. You see an odd hump in your second dataset near the first dataset's four -- which might be a truncation of similar values -- and then a bump way out on the right and a bump to the left.



          Do you know how your data is captured? For example, are you scanning objects with software that places points farther apart in areas of low curvature? (This might be the result if your objects are captured as quadrangles, with adjacent quadrangles that have a low angle between them joined into a single quadrangle? Or it might be that your capture process is driven by changes in reflectivity -- i.e. curvature -- that must exceed a threshold before a data point is recorded?)



          My guess as to your original strange graph for your second dataset is that the bump way out on the right caused things to scale oddly, so you got a discretized graph.



          Your raw data appears to be a mixture of data generation processes and data capture artifacts (which might include truncation, censoring, discretization, and noise). So the question is: do you want a single distribution for all of your data as captured, or for your data after accounting for artifacts, or something else?



          Trying to come up with a single distribution for a mixture of process results is usually a bad idea.



          enter image description here






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot for your very helpful answer. While the answer by Glen_b more directly answers the question about the plot, your answer helps with my analysis. And you are right in your assumptions: the curvature data is from a mesh of the objects, consisting of triangles. The mesh algorithm places more vertices in areas with higher curvature, I guess. It is very likely that it contains noise, as the meshes were generated from noisy 3D image data. I am not interested in the noise and would indeed be very interested in filtering it, but am unsure how. I could threshold some, but not all.
            $endgroup$
            – John Silver
            Apr 19 at 20:54


















          2












          $begingroup$

          [My previous answer had a fatal mistake in it, so I deleted it and made a new one.]



          Here's a more basic plot instead of your fancy plot. The black line is the density plot your first dataset, and the red line is of your second. (Note that the first dataset is more compact, so its density goes off the top.)



          You see at least 4 discretized points in your first dataset, which density has turned into humps. You see an odd hump in your second dataset near the first dataset's four -- which might be a truncation of similar values -- and then a bump way out on the right and a bump to the left.



          Do you know how your data is captured? For example, are you scanning objects with software that places points farther apart in areas of low curvature? (This might be the result if your objects are captured as quadrangles, with adjacent quadrangles that have a low angle between them joined into a single quadrangle? Or it might be that your capture process is driven by changes in reflectivity -- i.e. curvature -- that must exceed a threshold before a data point is recorded?)



          My guess as to your original strange graph for your second dataset is that the bump way out on the right caused things to scale oddly, so you got a discretized graph.



          Your raw data appears to be a mixture of data generation processes and data capture artifacts (which might include truncation, censoring, discretization, and noise). So the question is: do you want a single distribution for all of your data as captured, or for your data after accounting for artifacts, or something else?



          Trying to come up with a single distribution for a mixture of process results is usually a bad idea.



          enter image description here






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot for your very helpful answer. While the answer by Glen_b more directly answers the question about the plot, your answer helps with my analysis. And you are right in your assumptions: the curvature data is from a mesh of the objects, consisting of triangles. The mesh algorithm places more vertices in areas with higher curvature, I guess. It is very likely that it contains noise, as the meshes were generated from noisy 3D image data. I am not interested in the noise and would indeed be very interested in filtering it, but am unsure how. I could threshold some, but not all.
            $endgroup$
            – John Silver
            Apr 19 at 20:54
















          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          [My previous answer had a fatal mistake in it, so I deleted it and made a new one.]



          Here's a more basic plot instead of your fancy plot. The black line is the density plot your first dataset, and the red line is of your second. (Note that the first dataset is more compact, so its density goes off the top.)



          You see at least 4 discretized points in your first dataset, which density has turned into humps. You see an odd hump in your second dataset near the first dataset's four -- which might be a truncation of similar values -- and then a bump way out on the right and a bump to the left.



          Do you know how your data is captured? For example, are you scanning objects with software that places points farther apart in areas of low curvature? (This might be the result if your objects are captured as quadrangles, with adjacent quadrangles that have a low angle between them joined into a single quadrangle? Or it might be that your capture process is driven by changes in reflectivity -- i.e. curvature -- that must exceed a threshold before a data point is recorded?)



          My guess as to your original strange graph for your second dataset is that the bump way out on the right caused things to scale oddly, so you got a discretized graph.



          Your raw data appears to be a mixture of data generation processes and data capture artifacts (which might include truncation, censoring, discretization, and noise). So the question is: do you want a single distribution for all of your data as captured, or for your data after accounting for artifacts, or something else?



          Trying to come up with a single distribution for a mixture of process results is usually a bad idea.



          enter image description here






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          [My previous answer had a fatal mistake in it, so I deleted it and made a new one.]



          Here's a more basic plot instead of your fancy plot. The black line is the density plot your first dataset, and the red line is of your second. (Note that the first dataset is more compact, so its density goes off the top.)



          You see at least 4 discretized points in your first dataset, which density has turned into humps. You see an odd hump in your second dataset near the first dataset's four -- which might be a truncation of similar values -- and then a bump way out on the right and a bump to the left.



          Do you know how your data is captured? For example, are you scanning objects with software that places points farther apart in areas of low curvature? (This might be the result if your objects are captured as quadrangles, with adjacent quadrangles that have a low angle between them joined into a single quadrangle? Or it might be that your capture process is driven by changes in reflectivity -- i.e. curvature -- that must exceed a threshold before a data point is recorded?)



          My guess as to your original strange graph for your second dataset is that the bump way out on the right caused things to scale oddly, so you got a discretized graph.



          Your raw data appears to be a mixture of data generation processes and data capture artifacts (which might include truncation, censoring, discretization, and noise). So the question is: do you want a single distribution for all of your data as captured, or for your data after accounting for artifacts, or something else?



          Trying to come up with a single distribution for a mixture of process results is usually a bad idea.



          enter image description here







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Apr 19 at 13:57

























          answered Apr 19 at 13:35









          WayneWayne

          16.5k23976




          16.5k23976












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot for your very helpful answer. While the answer by Glen_b more directly answers the question about the plot, your answer helps with my analysis. And you are right in your assumptions: the curvature data is from a mesh of the objects, consisting of triangles. The mesh algorithm places more vertices in areas with higher curvature, I guess. It is very likely that it contains noise, as the meshes were generated from noisy 3D image data. I am not interested in the noise and would indeed be very interested in filtering it, but am unsure how. I could threshold some, but not all.
            $endgroup$
            – John Silver
            Apr 19 at 20:54




















          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot for your very helpful answer. While the answer by Glen_b more directly answers the question about the plot, your answer helps with my analysis. And you are right in your assumptions: the curvature data is from a mesh of the objects, consisting of triangles. The mesh algorithm places more vertices in areas with higher curvature, I guess. It is very likely that it contains noise, as the meshes were generated from noisy 3D image data. I am not interested in the noise and would indeed be very interested in filtering it, but am unsure how. I could threshold some, but not all.
            $endgroup$
            – John Silver
            Apr 19 at 20:54


















          $begingroup$
          Thanks a lot for your very helpful answer. While the answer by Glen_b more directly answers the question about the plot, your answer helps with my analysis. And you are right in your assumptions: the curvature data is from a mesh of the objects, consisting of triangles. The mesh algorithm places more vertices in areas with higher curvature, I guess. It is very likely that it contains noise, as the meshes were generated from noisy 3D image data. I am not interested in the noise and would indeed be very interested in filtering it, but am unsure how. I could threshold some, but not all.
          $endgroup$
          – John Silver
          Apr 19 at 20:54






          $begingroup$
          Thanks a lot for your very helpful answer. While the answer by Glen_b more directly answers the question about the plot, your answer helps with my analysis. And you are right in your assumptions: the curvature data is from a mesh of the objects, consisting of triangles. The mesh algorithm places more vertices in areas with higher curvature, I guess. It is very likely that it contains noise, as the meshes were generated from noisy 3D image data. I am not interested in the noise and would indeed be very interested in filtering it, but am unsure how. I could threshold some, but not all.
          $endgroup$
          – John Silver
          Apr 19 at 20:54




















          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%2f403952%2fwhat-does-the-distribution-of-bootstrapped-values-in-this-cullen-and-frey-graph%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