So annoying that Brahms Lullaby + Carmen + Hall of the Mountain King type stuff is the stationary point of Spofity autoplay starting from absolutely any classical music
@wfithian I've always liked "An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic" by Ian Hacking. It's more philosophy than statistics, but maybe that's fine.
In statistics we sure make a big deal about data exchangeability. But once we've established it, we /never actually exchange it/.
I'm concerned that people will notice and stop taking us seriously.
@ShenRaphael Funny, when I searched on Google, in addition to the actual result, one of the top news hits had the headline "'A very disturbing picture': another retraction imminent for controversial physicist."
I see what you're doing there, Google, and I like it.
@ShenRaphael @skdeshpande91 @AdvikSh We were out there in the alley confessing to each other our feelings about Dynkin's pi-lambda theorem
(true story)
@ProbFact In Stigler's History of Statistics, he makes the opposite case --- that the 18th century's initial focus on the binomial distribution impeded the development of inference since it's not naturally amenable to fiducial arguments. (Ch. 2, esp. page 91 of the 1986 edition)
1/n The (great) Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets (2021) paper differs from traditional conformal in at least three ways: they use a generic loss, separately control randomness in calibration and test data, and control an "point estimate" expected loss.
3/n This result is well known to the papers' authors, and probably won't be surprising to people already very familiar with conformal. But I feel it's worth pointing out --- the paper's methods are even more flexible than it might at first appear.
2/n I wrote a short blog post pointing out that these three differences can be easily disentangled. For example, one can guarantee (WHP) that the loss on a particular test point is less than some value, rather than controlling expected loss.
https://t.co/IDEG5xHKKx
We're happy to announce a major new version of nimble. It includes Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (package nimbleHMC, configurable with other MCMC samplers), Laplace approximation, and automatic differentiation for algorithm programmers: https://t.co/75t1UQNPUk. https://t.co/kTd3RYLzQy
@SomeoneSerge@xenophar Good question --- this is about handling the intractable expectation in the variational objective, not the size of the data.
We assume you can evaluate the log joint distribution on the whole dataset.
I have never written a VB paper using SGD --- instead, I have always fixed the draws in advance and optimized the deterministic objective.
Thanks in part to amazing co-first-author @xenophar, there is finally a paper about it!
https://t.co/ktJGijDxuT
So exciting to see MIT news featuring our work (accepted at ICML) on how to better predict currents and identify divergences in the ocean from sparse buoy data 🌊
@ta_broderick@brianltrippe@rgiordan@TOzgokmen David Burt, Kaushik Srinivasan & Junfei Xia
https://t.co/hEZpznIZU8