اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدComments on Two Cultures: What have changed over 20 years?
179
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Twenty years ago Breiman (2001) called to our attention a significant cultural division in modeling and data analysis between the stochastic data models and the algorithmic models. Out of his deep concern that the statistical community was so deeply and almost exclusively committed to the former, Breiman warned that we were losing our abilities to solve many real-world problems. Breiman was not the first, and certainly not the only statistician, to sound the alarm; we may refer to none other than John Tukey who wrote almost 60 years ago data analysis is intrinsically an empirical science. However, the bluntness and timeliness of Breimans article made it uniquely influential. It prepared us for the data science era and encouraged a new generation of statisticians to embrace a more broadly defined discipline. Some might argue that The cultural division between these two statistical learning frameworks has been growing at a steady pace in recent years, to quote Mukhopadhyay and Wang (2020). In this commentary, we focus on some of the positive changes over the past 20 years and offer an optimistic outlook for our profession.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
We first review empirical evidence that asset prices have had episodes of large fluctuations and been inefficient for at least 200 years. We briefly review recent theoretical results as well as the neurological basis of trend following and finally ar
gue that these asset price properties can be attributed to two fundamental mechanisms that have not changed for many centuries: an innate preference for trend following and the collective tendency to exploit as much as possible detectable price arbitrage, which leads to destabilizing feedback loops.
Breimans classic paper casts data analysis as a choice between two cultures: data modelers and algorithmic modelers. Stated broadly, data modelers use simple, interpretable models with well-understood theoretical properties to analyze data. Algorithm
ic modelers prioritize predictive accuracy and use more flexible function approximations to analyze data. This dichotomy overlooks a third set of models $-$ mechanistic models derived from scientific theories (e.g., ODE/SDE simulators). Mechanistic models encode application-specific scientific knowledge about the data. And while these categories represent extreme points in model space, modern computational and algorithmic tools enable us to interpolate between these points, producing flexible, interpretable, and scientifically-informed hybrids that can enjoy accurate and robust predictions, and resolve issues with data analysis that Breiman describes, such as the Rashomon effect and Occams dilemma. Challenges still remain in finding an appropriate point in model space, with many choices on how to compose model components and the degree to which each component informs inferences.
I revisit two theories of cell differentiation in multicellular organisms published a half-century ago, Stuart Kauffmans global gene regulatory dynamics (GGRD) model and Roy Brittens and Eric Davidsons modular gene regulatory network (MGRN) model, in
light of newer knowledge of mechanisms of gene regulation in the metazoans (animals). The two models continue to inform hypotheses and computational studies of differentiation of lineage-adjacent cell types. However, their shared notion (based on bacterial regulatory systems) of gene switches and networks built from them, have constrained progress in understanding the dynamics and evolution of differentiation. Recent work has described unique write-read-rewrite chromatin-based expression encoding in eukaryotes, as well metazoan-specific processes of gene activation and silencing in condensed-phase, enhancer-recruiting regulatory hubs, employing disordered proteins, including transcription factors, with context-dependent identities. These findings suggest an evolutionary scenario in which the origination of differentiation in animals, rather than depending exclusively on adaptive natural selection, emerged as a consequence of a type of multicellularity in which the novel metazoan gene regulatory apparatus was readily mobilized to amplify and exaggerate inherent cell functions of unicellular ancestors. The plausibility of this hypothesis is illustrated by the evolution of the developmental role of Grainyhead-like in the formation of epithelium.
Breiman challenged statisticians to think more broadly, to step into the unknown, model-free learning world, with him paving the way forward. Statistics community responded with slight optimism, some skepticism, and plenty of disbelief. Today, we are
at the same crossroad anew. Faced with the enormous practical success of model-free, deep, and machine learning, we are naturally inclined to think that everything is resolved. A new frontier has emerged; the one where the role, impact, or stability of the {it learning} algorithms is no longer measured by prediction quality, but an inferential one -- asking the questions of {it why} and {it if} can no longer be safely ignored.
Deep learning has led to significant improvement in text summarization with various methods investigated and improved ROUGE scores reported over the years. However, gaps still exist between summaries produced by automatic summarizers and human profes
sionals. Aiming to gain more understanding of summarization systems with respect to their strengths and limits on a fine-grained syntactic and semantic level, we consult the Multidimensional Quality Metric(MQM) and quantify 8 major sources of errors on 10 representative summarization models manually. Primarily, we find that 1) under similar settings, extractive summarizers are in general better than their abstractive counterparts thanks to strength in faithfulness and factual-consistency; 2) milestone techniques such as copy, coverage and hybrid extractive/abstractive methods do bring specific improvements but also demonstrate limitations; 3) pre-training techniques, and in particular sequence-to-sequence pre-training, are highly effective for improving text summarization, with BART giving the best results.
الأسئلة المقترحة
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
