baseline was just the numbers of snarks vs. the number of boojums for cases where all data was the same except waking time, then I fudged based on:
if there are few or no boojums, see what numbers you get if you relax the non-taste characteristics one by one
is the waking time typical for a boojum? for a snark? can relax multiple non-taste characteristics for more data
If Crumbling, I assumed that the early part of the Crumbling distribution is probably snarks and the late is probably boojums, see below. Though, I wasn’t actually confident enough to pick any Crumbling ones.
Also, I tried to figure stuff out about the nature of the dataset but didn’t end up with particularly actionable information; I did come to a strong suspicion based on comparing the Crumbling data with the Blunt data that the late Crumbling ones are boojums and the early ones are snarks, but I wasn’t confident enough in this to actually pick any Crumbling ones.
Also, early on I was making a poem in homage to the OP poem as I went along, which was kind of silly I guess, but included below. I didn’t want to post it at the time since I hadn’t finished either the poem or the analysis which I was writing about...and it is still not updated with my later analysis, but posting anyway. I never did follow up the issue I was reporting on at the end...
The Snarks, so it seems, know just when to wake up;
From one beyond seven, the sun’s nigh still up!
But the graph of those times, it hops and it hops:
A possible sign of some smaller sub-pops!
One-forty, two-thirty, two-fifty or so,
These are some peaks one can spot on the go.
But there looks like a broad one whose lateness abounds,
Though it could be a mishmash of all groups not found.
Four-fifty the top of another small mound.
And the Boojums, you see, don’t quite seem to respect
The waking-time patterns that one would expect.
But enough of the times—on to matters of Taste!
It looks like the Crumbling ones all go to waste!
But the Crumbling wake times! - one peak is at two,
And it doesn’t line up with the Snarks one can view.
Another one peaks around four thirty-five,
Are they from the broad set of Snarks found alive?
But that seems to peak quite a lot before then,
Unless I am missing a time where again
Some Snark group decidedly tends to revive,
So why take the risk if you like to survive?
The Snarks that are Artless are heaped to be broad
With some showing up in the two thirty pod,
Especially when they are Crisp as a pier,
But looking at those that are Neat and are Clear,
The peaks don’t line up! Could it be that these here …
The unsolved issue being—does each sub-population have a consistent wake time distribution regardless of other characteristics individual members may have, or do the other characteristics alter the wake times? I was implicitly assuming the former, but I didn’t follow up to really convince myself that this was the case.
My selection:
YNVGQRPHDBL
(ordered from best to not-as-best looking to me)
my total ordering from best to worst would have been (this is not my selection:)
YNVGQRPHDBLJMCASWXOIKTUFE
where I think EV starts to drop after about 19 picks
further commentary to be included in reply
techniques used:
baseline was just the numbers of snarks vs. the number of boojums for cases where all data was the same except waking time, then I fudged based on:
if there are few or no boojums, see what numbers you get if you relax the non-taste characteristics one by one
is the waking time typical for a boojum? for a snark? can relax multiple non-taste characteristics for more data
If Crumbling, I assumed that the early part of the Crumbling distribution is probably snarks and the late is probably boojums, see below. Though, I wasn’t actually confident enough to pick any Crumbling ones.
Also, I tried to figure stuff out about the nature of the dataset but didn’t end up with particularly actionable information; I did come to a strong suspicion based on comparing the Crumbling data with the Blunt data that the late Crumbling ones are boojums and the early ones are snarks, but I wasn’t confident enough in this to actually pick any Crumbling ones.
Also, early on I was making a poem in homage to the OP poem as I went along, which was kind of silly I guess, but included below. I didn’t want to post it at the time since I hadn’t finished either the poem or the analysis which I was writing about...and it is still not updated with my later analysis, but posting anyway. I never did follow up the issue I was reporting on at the end...
The Snarks, so it seems, know just when to wake up;
From one beyond seven, the sun’s nigh still up!
But the graph of those times, it hops and it hops:
A possible sign of some smaller sub-pops!
One-forty, two-thirty, two-fifty or so,
These are some peaks one can spot on the go.
But there looks like a broad one whose lateness abounds,
Though it could be a mishmash of all groups not found.
Four-fifty the top of another small mound.
And the Boojums, you see, don’t quite seem to respect
The waking-time patterns that one would expect.
But enough of the times—on to matters of Taste!
It looks like the Crumbling ones all go to waste!
But the Crumbling wake times! - one peak is at two,
And it doesn’t line up with the Snarks one can view.
Another one peaks around four thirty-five,
Are they from the broad set of Snarks found alive?
But that seems to peak quite a lot before then,
Unless I am missing a time where again
Some Snark group decidedly tends to revive,
So why take the risk if you like to survive?
The Snarks that are Artless are heaped to be broad
With some showing up in the two thirty pod,
Especially when they are Crisp as a pier,
But looking at those that are Neat and are Clear,
The peaks don’t line up! Could it be that these here …
The unsolved issue being—does each sub-population have a consistent wake time distribution regardless of other characteristics individual members may have, or do the other characteristics alter the wake times? I was implicitly assuming the former, but I didn’t follow up to really convince myself that this was the case.