Today's Web-enabled deluge of electronic data calls for automated methods of data analysis. Machine learning provides these, developing methods that can automatically detect patterns in data and then use the uncovered patterns to predict future data. This textbook offers a comprehensive and self-contained introduction to the field of machine learning, based on a unified, probabilistic approach. The coverage combines breadth and depth, offering necessary background material on such topics as probability, optimization, and linear algebra as well as discussion of recent developments in the field, including conditional random fields, L1 regularization, and deep learning. The book is written in an informal, accessible style, complete with pseudo-code for the most important algorithms. All topics are copiously illustrated with color images and worked examples drawn from such application domains as biology, text processing, computer vision, and robotics. Rather than providing a cookbook of different heuristic methods, the book stresses a principled model-based approach, often using the language of graphical models to specify models in a concise and intuitive way. Almost all the models described have been implemented in a MATLAB software package--PMTK (probabilistic modeling toolkit)--that is freely available online. The book is suitable for upper-level undergraduates with an introductory-level college math background and beginning graduate students.

Machine Learning : A Probabilistic Perspective

Bayesian methods have garnered huge interest in cognitive science as an approach to models of cognition and perception. On the other hand, Bayesian methods for data analysis have not yet made much headway in cognitive science against the institutionalized inertia of 20th century null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). Ironically, specific Bayesian models of cognition and perception may not long endure the ravages of empirical verification, but generic Bayesian methods for data analysis will eventually dominate. It is time that Bayesian data analysis became the norm for empirical methods in cognitive science. This article reviews a fatal flaw of NHST and introduces the reader to some benefits of Bayesian data analysis. The article presents illustrative examples of multiple comparisons in Bayesian analysis of variance and Bayesian approaches to statistical power. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Bayesian data analysis.

Cobb’s concern was a long-worrisome circularity in the sociology of science based on the use of bright lines such as p< 0.05: “We teach it because it’s what we do; we do it because it’s what we teach.” This concern was brought to the attention of the ASA Board. The ASA Board was also stimulated by highly visible discussions over the last few years. For example, ScienceNews (Siegfried 2010) wrote: “It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The ‘scientific method’ of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation.” A November 2013, article in Phys.org Science News Wire (2013) cited “numerous deep flaws” in null hypothesis significance testing. A ScienceNews article (Siegfried 2014) on February 7, 2014, said “statistical techniques for testing hypotheses...havemore flaws than Facebook’s privacy policies.” Aweek later, statistician and “Simply Statistics” blogger Jeff Leek responded. “The problem is not that people use P-values poorly,” Leek wrote, “it is that the vast majority of data analysis is not performed by people properly trained to perform data analysis” (Leek 2014). That same week, statistician and science writer Regina Nuzzo published an article in Nature entitled “Scientific Method: Statistical Errors” (Nuzzo 2014). That article is nowone of the most highly viewedNature articles, as reported by altmetric.com (http://www.altmetric.com/details/2115792#score). Of course, it was not simply a matter of responding to some articles in print. The statistical community has been deeply concerned about issues of reproducibility and replicability of scientific conclusions. Without getting into definitions and distinctions of these terms, we observe that much confusion and even doubt about the validity of science is arising. Such doubt can lead to radical choices, such as the one taken by the editors of Basic andApplied Social Psychology, who decided to ban p-values (null hypothesis significance testing) (Trafimow and Marks 2015). Misunderstanding or misuse of statistical inference is only one cause of the “reproducibility crisis” (Peng 2015), but to our community, it is an important one. When the ASA Board decided to take up the challenge of developing a policy statement on p-values and statistical significance, it did so recognizing this was not a lightly taken step. The ASA has not previously taken positions on specific matters of statistical practice. The closest the association has come to this is a statement on the use of value-added models (VAM) for educational assessment (Morganstein and Wasserstein 2014) and a statement on risk-limiting post-election audits (American Statistical Association 2010). However, these were truly policy-related statements. The VAM statement addressed a key educational policy issue, acknowledging the complexity of the issues involved, citing limitations of VAMs as effective performance models, and urging that they be developed and interpreted with the involvement of statisticians. The statement on election auditing was also in response to a major but specific policy issue (close elections in 2008), and said that statistically based election audits should become a routine part of election processes. By contrast, the Board envisioned that the ASA statement on p-values and statistical significance would shed light on an aspect of our field that is too often misunderstood and misused in the broader research community, and, in the process, provides the community a service. The intended audience would be researchers, practitioners, and science writers who are not primarily statisticians. Thus, this statementwould be quite different from anything previously attempted. The Board tasked Wasserstein with assembling a group of experts representing a wide variety of points of view. On behalf of the Board, he reached out to more than two dozen such people, all of whom said theywould be happy to be involved. Several expressed doubt about whether agreement could be reached, but those who did said, in effect, that if there was going to be a discussion, they wanted to be involved. Over the course of many months, group members discussed what format the statement should take, tried to more concretely visualize the audience for the statement, and began to find points of agreement. That turned out to be relatively easy to do, but it was just as easy to find points of intense disagreement. The time came for the group to sit down together to hash out these points, and so in October 2015, 20 members of the group met at the ASA Office in Alexandria, Virginia. The 2-day meeting was facilitated by Regina Nuzzo, and by the end of the meeting, a good set of points around which the statement could be built was developed. The next 3 months saw multiple drafts of the statement, reviewed by group members, by Board members (in a lengthy discussion at the November 2015 ASA Board meeting), and by members of the target audience. Finally, on January 29, 2016, the Executive Committee of the ASA approved the statement. The statement development process was lengthier and more controversial than anticipated. For example, there was considerable discussion about how best to address the issue of multiple potential comparisons (Gelman and Loken 2014). We debated at some length the issues behind the words “a p-value near 0.05 taken by itself offers only weak evidence against the null

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

The ASA's Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose

The analysis of medical images has been woven into the fabric of the pattern analysis and machine intelligence (PAMI) community since the earliest days of these Transactions. Initially, the efforts in this area were seen as applying pattern analysis and computer vision techniques to another interesting dataset. However, over the last two to three decades, the unique nature of the problems presented within this area of study have led to the development of a new discipline in its own right. Examples of these include: the types of image information that are acquired, the fully three-dimensional image data, the nonrigid nature of object motion and deformation, and the statistical variation of both the underlying normal and abnormal ground truth. In this paper, we look at progress in the field over the last 20 years and suggest some of the challenges that remain for the years to come.

https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00615100/document

Medical image analysis: progress over two decades and the challenges ahead

(1998). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. Gifted and Talented International: Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 97-98.

Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies

Many medical imaging systems produce images that are degraded by statistical noise and blurring. This paper describes a physical model for the generation of images associated with these systems and presents a restoration algorithm that is designed to compensate for these sources of degradation. The restoration algorithm is based on the idea of Bayesian data augmentation and utilizes a Gibbs prior for the image. This prior incorporates two essential features necessary for the restoration of such images. First, boundary detection is included so that nonhomogeneous regions can be identified. Second, an expanded neighborhood system is proposed to permit the deconvolution of blurring effects. Additionally, a procedure for choosing parameters of the Gibbs prior is discussed.

Data Augmentation Schemes Applied to Image Restoration

The subject of statistical inference under order restrictions has been studied extensively since Bartholomew’s likelihood-ratio test for means under restricted alternatives [1]. Order restrictions explicitly introduce scientific knowledge into the mathematical formulation of the problem, which can improve inference.

Bayes Factors Based on Test Statistics Under Order Restrictions

Bayesian Checking of the Second Levels of Hierarchical Models. Comment.

Gaussian random fields are frequently used to model spatial and spatial–temporal data, particularly in geostatistical settings. As much of the attention of the statistics community has been focused on defining and estimating the mean and covariance functions of these processes, little effort has been devoted to developing goodness-of-fit tests to allow users to assess the models' adequacy. We describe a general goodness-of-fit test and related graphical diagnostics for assessing the fit of Bayesian Gaussian process models using pivotal discrepancy measures. Our method is applicable for both regularly and irregularly spaced observation locations on planar and spherical domains. The essential idea behind our method is to evaluate pivotal quantities defined for a realization of a Gaussian random field at parameter values drawn from the posterior distribution. Because the nominal distribution of the resulting pivotal discrepancy measures is known, it is possible to quantitatively assess model fit directly from the output of Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms used to sample from the posterior distribution on the parameter space. We illustrate our method in a simulation study and in two applications. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Valen E. Johnson

Papers

Data Augmentation Schemes Applied to Image Restoration

Bayes Factors Based on Test Statistics Under Order Restrictions

Bayesian Checking of the Second Levels of Hierarchical Models. Comment.

Assessing fit in Bayesian models for spatial processes

[Estimating Fatigue Curves with the Random Fatigue-Limit Model]: Discussion