https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/CASI_files/errata.

html

Thank you for sending in errata. Please check against the errata already posted, which are grouped according to print number.

Errata since corrected December 2017 online version.

Page 19, Figure 2.2 (Francisco Fonseca): the values .8, .6, .4 etc are threshold values for x, not c. The c values are 2.75, 1.75,
.75, ..., -3.25
Page 102, equation (7.46) (Sungil Kim): there should be 1/1000 inside each brace
Page 226, equation (12.74)(Sungil Kim): should be .
Page 315, equation (16.14) (Hao Bo): the boldface partial residual r should be annotated differently, since over the page we use
boldface r for the full residual.
Page 338, section "Shrinkage" (Chun Li): The blue ensemble uses a shrinkage parameter 25 times smaller, not "20 times."
Page 380, last line (Chun Li): "as opposed to", not "as apposed to"

Errata since corrected March 2017 online version and 4th printing, and corrected for December 2017 online version and
5th printing.

Page 9, line -8 (Ariel): "non-nsignificant" "non-significant"

Page 10, Figure 1.5 (Chun Li): The t-statistics used here were actually the unequal-variance version (Welch); this will be
replaced by the histogram using the pooled-variance
Page 27, Figure 3.2 (David Goldberg): the black curve (posterior wrt uniform prior) is incorrect. What is plotted is the likelihood,
which integrates to 0.977. One needs to divide this function by 0.977, which changes slightly the points of intersections
Page 40, equation (4.7) (Jui-Chung Yang): the in the denominator should be be
Page 49-50 (Chun Li): 3.13 is the unequal-variance (Welch) t-statistic for gene 136; will be replaced by 3.01, the pooled-
variance t-statistic, to achieve consistency with Chapter 1. There were 26 exceedences, and hence a p-value of 0.0026
Page 67, before (5.60) (Douglas Rivers): "derivate" should be "derivative"
Page 68 bottom (David Goldberg): It says Lindsey's method will be discussed in Chapter 15. It says the same thing in footnote 5
in page 171. But it is actually explained in Chapter 10 (page 171) and not in Chapter 15. The index entry for Lindsey's method
points to page 68, but it should be to page 171.
Page 78, 2 lines from the bottom (Jui-Chung Yang): "Table 6.2 going on to show that three species were trapped 44 times each,
and so on." Should instead be "Table 6.2 going on to show that 44 species were trapped three times each, and so on"
Page 83, below (6.27)(Chun Li): better to be "as in (6.17)". Below (6.28) : N is the total number of butterflies trapped (or the total
number of words in Shakespeare's work), not the number of species
Page 105, above (7.48) (Harel Lustiger): should be equivalent to using the notation in table 5.1
Page 115, (8.19) (Douglas Rivers): rather than
Pages 120 and 121, section 8.3: "486" should be "487"
Page 127, last line (Sheridan Grant): "the availability [of] massive ..."
Page 134 (in section 9.2)(Florian Krach): “The response for each patient is survival time in [days]†(instead of months).
Page 151 (Greenwoods formula)(Florian Krach): There should be (instead of just so that
. And in the next sentence: "Plugging in [ ] ..." (instead of ).
Page 167, line -3: t statistic is 3.01, not 3.13
Page 172, footnote 7 (David Goldberg): the factor in the formula should be
Page 184, Figure 11.2 (David Goldberg): The 0.953 should be . But
Page 190, first sentence of section 11.3 (David Goldberg): reference (11.22) should be (11.23)
Page 191, line -8 (David Golberg): endnote 4 and endnote 5 should change positions and numbers in the endnotes.
Page 202, line 5 (David Goldberg): (11.17) rather than (11.16)
Page 213, above equation 12.20 (Francisco Rodriguez Algarra): "as" "an"
Page 214, just after equation (12.22) (David Golberg): The reference for err = 0.72 should be equation (12.11), not (12.9)
Page 215, figure 12.2 (Francisco Rodriguez Algarra): the different error estimates are colored blue (apparent) or red (cross-

1 of 4 4/30/2019, 11:43 AM
 https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/CASI_files/errata.html

validated). In the main body of the text, however, these are described as solid (apparent) or dashed (cross-validated) lines, with
no mention of the colors
Page 217, Figure 12.3 (David Goldberg): this figure is truncated at 2.0 on both axes (causing the pile-up). The next printing will
replace this with the non-truncated version.
Page 227, 3rd line of section 12.4 (David Goldberg): the reference should be (12.19), not (12.16)
Page 284, table 15.1 (David Goldberg): deviances, when recomputed, are slightly off; should be 138.6, 137.0, 65.1,64.1,63.7
Page 288. figure 15.8 (David Goldberg): the points in the plot are truncated at [-6,6]; the next printing will replace this with the
non-truncated version.
Page 341, Algorithm 17.4, part 2(a) (David Thaler): 1=1...n should be i=1...n
Page 345, first line of (17.15)(Sheridan Grant): missing a close parenthesis on the right-hand side
Page 360, 3 lines above Figure 18.5 (Paul on Discuss): "just under 0.093% errors" should be "just under 0.93% errors"
Page 371 section 18.6 (Sheridan Grant): "Two early statistical references... are Ripley (1996) and Bishop (1995), [and] Hastie et
al (2009) devote one chapter to the topic."
Page 376 section 19.1 (Sheridan Grant): "We see three different classifiers..., and they all classif[y] the points perfectly."
Also, we mention the +1 and -1 coding, but don't explicitly say y is coded as such.
Page 403, above (20.27) (Sheridan Grant): Too many *s here. Probably (20.27) wants no *s as well, nor does t(c,x*) below
Figure 20.6
Page 465 (Michael Godfrey): "Teller" in author index points to page 261, but does not appear there. [authors' note: on page 261,
the "Metropolis" reference list is abbreviated, and (two) Tellers are in this list. In the next printing, the index will also point to the
bibliography page where Teller appears (in this case 459), and for all such similar occurrences.]

Errata since November 2016 corrections submitted for 2nd printing, and corrected in March 2017 online version.

Page 27, Figure 3.2 (Zepu Xi): Vertical axis is posterior, so label should be using the notation in the chapter
Page 45, equation (4.34) (Ari Pakman): the mean should be , not 0. Also (twice) in the 4th line below (4.35)
Page 45, line -8 (Pablo Davalos): "How accurate is " should be: "How accurate is ", following the notation in line -10
Page 49, equation (4.42) (Josh O'Brein): the on the RHS of the inequality should be (though in this specific application, with
, it happens to makes no difference)
Page 55, below equation (5.4) (Ari Pakman): " small" should be " small
Page 69, (5.64) (Ari Pakman): the ' ' in the lower right should be a ' '
Page 71, (5.74) (Qike Li): the first expression should be . (5.75): the should be , and
should be .
Page 76, table 6.1 (Christoph Hanck): Last entry for "Formula (6.7)"-row should be
Page 80, Eq (6.16) (Manuel Haussmann): should read "...( ..." instead of "...( ..."
Page 92, equation (7.12) (Yi Liu): in [...], the first should be
Page 93, line -8 (Ari Pakman): "inadmissable" should be "inadmissible"
Page 111, Eq (8.11) (Manuel Haussmann): the last product should read " " instead of " "
Page 115, last paragraph (Ari Pakman): the reference to eq. (7.19) should be to (7.20)
Page 117, Table 8.4 (Ari Pakman): "binomial" should be capitalized, to be consistent with Table 5.1
Page 117, eq. (8.25) (Ari Pakman): in the equation on the right, it should be .
Page 118, second line below (8.28) (Ari Pakman): the two 's should be
Page 118, the line below (8.30)(Ari Pakman): in the variance of the exact OLS result, the exponent of should be -2, not 2. This
agrees with (8.30) (since is diagonal with entries ) and also with the fact that for linear regression , the
coefficient in (8.24) is . This latter fact should probably be in a footnote, otherwise this change might confuse.
Page 129, eq (8.53) (Ari Pakman): the subscript is missing on the left-hand side.
Page 130, below (8.59) (Ari Pakman): there is a missing before the ratio of 's
Page 141, eq (9.27) (Ari Pakman): the sums should be have "i=1" instead of "1"
Page 146, end of second paragraph (Ari Pakman): reference should be to (9.32), not (9.31)

2 of 4 4/30/2019, 11:43 AM
 https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/CASI_files/errata.html

Page 146, 4 lines before Section 9.5: "estimate or" rather than "estimate of"
Page 147, eq. (9.42) (Ari Pakman): the sums should be have "i=1" instead of "1"
Page 154, equation (9.63) (David Holdberg): the sign in front of the integral should be +, not -.
Page 159, eq (10,16) (Ari Pakman): in the right, the sum should read "b=1"
Page 205, equation (11.77) (David Goldberg): Remove the subscript 0 in in this equation and two lines below
Page 218, line -4 (Ari Pakman): the first symbol } should not be there
Page 224, eq (12.64) (Ari Pakman) the sum should be over b, not j
Page 254, Eq (13.73) (Andres): The denominator should have a plus rather than a minus
Page 256, eq (13.79)(Ari Pakman): the sum should be over j, not i
Page 260, line 5 after (13.84) (Manuel Haussmann): doubled "the"
Pages 308-310 (Ari Pakman): the symbol (number of data points) appears in Section 16.3 but disappears in 16.4, making the
notation inconsistent. For example, the equation in page 308, line -3 has a factor , while the same equation in page 309, line
-4 (written as lacks the factor
Page 321, l4 of paragraph "Extensions of the Lasso" (Manuel Haussmann): missing an apostrophe in "dont"
Page 403, second paragraph (Ari Pakman): the first should be .
Page 407, equation (20.32) (Noud van Giersbergen): there should not be a in the formula
Page 412, two lines below (20.42): replace the bold with
Page 420, line 5 below (20.68)(Ari Pakman): should be
Page 422, line -5 (David Goldberg): The reference should be to (21.1) and (21.2) instead of (3.1) and (3.2)
Page 456, reference (Efron 2016) (Ari Pakman): reference should be "Efron, B. 2016. Empirical Bayes deconvolution estimates,
Biometrika, 103(1), 1-20"

Errata since August 2016 first printing. Second printing in progress, corrected for all errata below.

Page 8, line 2 of Section 1.2: Should be 47 ALL and 25 AML

Page 11, Section 1.3 (Paul King): "...Tukey's explanatory/confirmatory system" should be "... Tukey's exploratory/confirmatory
system"
Page 16, above (2.12) (Andreas Buja): "distributuion" -> "distribution"
Page 17, (2.19) (Patrick Li): Should be
Page 32, line+7 (Ronald Wampler): change 0.083 to 0.074 (based on a million simulations)
Page 37, line 13 (David Olive): should be .
Page 41, 3 lines above (4.12): we reference (3.6) which should be (4.6)
Page 49, line 3 (Brandon Greenwell): reference to Figure 1.1 should be Figure 1.4
Page 52, (4.45) (David Olive): the second bracket of the three brackets needs a dx
Page 54, equation 5.2 (Romann Weber): Should read . Applies to the preceding text, and to the
footnote below as well.
Page 59, (5.23): Not an error, but form similar to (5.21) more suitable
Page 62, (5.37) (Romann Weber): instead of the parens, should be horizontal division bar.
Page 70, lin -1: As should be bold
Page 71, line -3:
Page 78, line -3 (Andreas Buja): "speciman"-> "specimen"
Page 79, line+2 (Andreas Buja): "speciman"-> "specimen"
Page 79, (6.12) (David Olive): (delete the comma)

Page 102, (7.43) (Simon Minovitsky): should be instead of .

Page 107, (7.59) (David Olive): should be inverse on last parens
Page 165, (10.32): instead of the parens, should be horizontal division bar.
Page 221, (12.50) (David Olive): (need a hat on the )

3 of 4 4/30/2019, 11:43 AM
 https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/CASI_files/errata.html

Page 245, Table 13.3 (John Williams): 20-50 should be 20-150

Page 310, end of step 3(b) in algorithm 16.3 (David Olive): should be
Page 310, line -11 (David Olive): endnote 1 rather than 4
Page 411, line 17 (David Olive): "valus" should be "values"
Page 411, (20.41) (David Olive): the should be
Page 431, 5th line of Fig. 21.3 (David Olive): "Tghe" should be "The"

4 of 4 4/30/2019, 11:43 AM