Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 87 references

Applied Statistics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: A Review and Vision

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review argues that applied statistics and artificial intelligence are mutually reinforcing: statistics supplies reliability and uncertainty tools for AI, and AI automates statistical analysis.

desk verdict A readable, honest review-and-vision piece whose thesis—AI and statistics are complementary—is sensible but unsurprising; the soft spots are its self-reliant examples and minor proofreading slips, not its logic. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10331 v1 pith:DOLO7MM3 submitted 2024-12-13 stat.AP cs.SI

Jie Min , Xinyi Song , Simin Zheng , Caleb B. King , Xinwei Deng , Yili Hong This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.APcs.SI MSC 62-0262P3068T01
keywords appliedstatisticsartificialintelligenceAIreliabilityuncertaintyquantificationexplainableautomatedstatisticalanalysisengineeringfutureofstatisticians
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a review and vision statement arguing that applied statistics and artificial intelligence are complementary, not competitors. The authors claim that statistical principles can be used to study AI models—quantifying their uncertainty, explaining their decisions, and assessing their reliability—and that AI, especially large language models, can in turn automate and improve statistical analysis. The argument is carried by examples from engineering statistics, including GPU failure modeling, sensor-data clustering, battery degradation, solar-panel image classification, and autonomous-vehicle disengagement data. If the claim holds, statisticians will not be displaced; their work will move toward study design, interpretation, and quality assurance of AI-assisted analysis.

What carries the argument

The organizing machinery is the eight-step applied-statistics workflow—problem definition, data collection, cleaning, exploration, statistical analysis, interpretation, reporting, and decision-making—used as a map of where AI enters. For the statistics-for-AI direction, a load-bearing object is the AI failure intensity model $\lambda[t; x(t), z] = \sum_{j=1}^{k} \lambda_j[t; x(t)] p_j(z; \beta_j)$, in which interruptive events arrive as counting processes and internal reliability properties determine how often they become failures. For the AI-for-statistics direction, the key objects are large-language-model agents that translate a problem description, data description, and dataset into executed statistical code and a written report. These two mechanisms together carry the paper's central claim that each field supplies what the other lacks.

What would settle it

A systematic audit of AI reliability practice across non-engineering fields—health, finance, natural language processing—that finds statistical frameworks rarely used would weaken the symbiosis claim; a controlled benchmark where an LLM-based statistical agent reproducibly fails on routine steps 3 to 7 of the workflow across diverse datasets would undercut the automation vision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a symbiotic relationship between applied statistics and AI, developed in Sections 4 and 5. On one side, statistics contributes methods for AI assurance: a counting-process intensity model for AI failure events, out-of-distribution detection based on intermediate-layer outputs and Mahalanobis distances, and test plans that balance consumer risk, producer risk, and testing time. On the other side, AI contributes automation to statistics: LLM-based agents that turn problem and data descriptions into executable analyses, natural-language statistical software, and data augmentation. The paper forecasts a "statistics robot" that would automate steps 3 to 7 of the eight-step applied-statistics workflow, while humans keep the judgment, ethics, and creativity that automation cannot replace. In short, the authors see the future of the field as a partnership in which statisticians can be leaders in AI research, not merely collaborators.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's broad conclusions about applied statistics rest on examples drawn almost entirely from engineering statistics, a selection the authors themselves acknowledge may not represent the whole field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Statistical tools will become standard for certifying AI systems: counting-process failure models, out-of-distribution detection, and multi-criteria test plans.
  • Routine data cleaning, modeling, and reporting will be automated by AI assistants, changing the everyday work of statisticians.
  • Statisticians will be able to lead AI research because robustness, safety, uncertainty, and interpretability are statistical problems at heart.
  • Statistical software will move to natural-language interaction, making advanced methods available to users without programming skills.
  • Training for statisticians will need to emphasize human judgment, ethics, and creativity, since those are the parts of the workflow least likely to be automated.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A cross-domain test of the symbiosis claim would be to apply the counting-process AI reliability framework to a clinical or financial prediction system and see whether the model fits; the paper only demonstrates it on engineering systems.
  • If the "statistics robot" vision arrives, statistical literacy may become more important rather than less, because users will need to judge outputs they did not personally produce.
  • The argument implies a curriculum shift: less routine modeling practice, more training in problem formulation, study design, and auditing automated analysis.
  • One testable extension is a benchmark comparing an LLM-based statistical agent against trained statisticians on diverse real datasets outside engineering, measuring correctness, reproducibility, and interpretation quality.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This review-and-vision paper argues that applied statistics and AI are symbiotic: statistical principles (uncertainty quantification, explainability, reliability assessment) can be used to study and improve AI models, while AI tools can automate and enhance statistical analysis. The paper lays out an eight-step applied-statistics workflow, sketches historical context, reviews traditional and emerging areas (with engineering-statistics examples such as GPU reliability, sensor-data clustering, battery degradation, PV image classification, and autonomous-vehicle disengagements), discusses AI assurance and AI-assisted analysis, and concludes with a forward-looking scenario of an automated "stat-bot" and the changing role of statisticians.

Significance. If taken as a perspective piece, the paper offers a useful and accessible synthesis of an important topic, and its central claim is defensible: the examples in Sections 4 and 5 do illustrate real ways in which statistics and AI can inform each other. The paper is transparent about its scope, explicitly acknowledging in Section 6.3 that the literature review is not exhaustive and that the illustrative examples are centered on engineering statistics. It also cites a broad literature beyond the authors' own work. However, the paper makes no new quantitative or falsifiable claims; its value lies in framing and advocacy rather than in novel methodology or systematic evidence. Its main weakness is the heavy reliance on the authors' own recent projects as illustrations, which is mitigated but not fully resolved by the stated limitations.

minor comments (6)
  1. [3.3] The sentence "Figure 6 illustrates the predicted degradation paths for four representative batteries" refers to the wrong figure; the battery degradation paths are shown in Figure 7, while Figure 6 is the SPEC benchmark plot from Section 3.2. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [4.4.3] In the definition of the I-spline model, the parameter vector is written as θ = (β1, ..., β_n)' but the cumulative baseline intensity is a sum over l = 1, ..., n_s spline coefficients. The dimension should be n_s, not n, to be internally consistent; please fix this notation.
  3. [3.3] The abbreviations GPM, FDM-LME, and FDM-FLMM are used in the text and Figure 7 without being fully defined on first use. Please expand these terms (e.g., Gaussian process model and functional degradation model with linear mixed effects / functional linear mixed model) in the text.
  4. [5.1] Figure 11(a) is difficult to read because the y-axis is not labeled and there is no legend showing which color corresponds to VGG19, ResNet50, Logit, SVM, and RF. Please add a clear axis label and legend.
  5. [6.3] The paper would benefit from explicitly stating in Section 6.3 that most of the detailed examples in Sections 2-5 are drawn from the authors' own research program and are selected by convenience rather than by a systematic sampling of the field. This would make the paper's perspective framing clearer and preempt concerns about self-referentiality.
  6. [Throughout] Several small presentation issues should be corrected: the abstract has a typo "Key W ords" instead of "Key Words"; Figure 4's caption says "from the senor" rather than "from the sensor"; and Section 6.3 uses the contraction "It's" in what is otherwise a formal style. These are minor but worth fixing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a review and vision essay whose claims are supported by published examples, not by a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a review and vision paper, not a research manuscript with a new falsifiable claim derived from equations. The central assertion that AI and applied statistics are complementary is a position statement, and the paper supports it with literature and examples from the authors' published work (Min et al. 2022, 2023; Jin et al. 2024; Cho et al. 2024; Hong et al. 2023; Song et al. 2024; Zheng et al. 2023). Those citations are used illustratively, not as a derivation chain: the paper does not fit a parameter and then call that fit a prediction, does not define a quantity in terms of the target claim, does not invoke a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work, and does not rename a known result as new organization. The paper explicitly acknowledges the evidentiary scope of its examples in Section 6.3: "Our illustrative examples are centered on engineering statistics, an area with which we are most familiar. However, we recognize that the applications of applied statistics extend far beyond this domain." This limitation statement undercuts any suggestion that the general complementarity thesis is forced by the authors' own examples. Self-citation is present and frequent, but it is not load-bearing in the logical sense used here: the cited papers are peer-reviewed studies with independent data (Titan GPU data, AV disengagement data, NASA battery data, EL image data), and the review's conclusions do not reduce to those papers' conclusions by construction. One minor internal inconsistency exists (Section 3.3 refers to 'Figure 6' for battery degradation paths while the figure is numbered Figure 7), but that is a proofreading issue, not a circularity. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the evidentiary standard can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's perspective rests on three domain assumptions about how applied statistics is organized and how representative the chosen examples are. No free parameters are fitted because the paper contains no quantitative analyses. It coins the term 'stat-bot' as a speculative future framework without a falsifiable specification.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The eight-step workflow described in Section 1.1 is a valid universal description of applied statistics practice.
    This workflow organizes the entire paper, but it is a pedagogical heuristic chosen by the authors, not an empirically established standard.
  • domain assumption AI and applied statistics have a symbiotic relationship, and the selected examples demonstrate this symbiosis.
    Sections 4 and 5 assert this relationship using illustrative projects, several from the authors' own group. The representativeness of these projects is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The authors' engineering-statistics perspective is sufficient to represent the field of applied statistics.
    The paper focuses on engineering statistics and acknowledges in the conclusion that coverage is not exhaustive; the central narrative depends on this perspective being broadly applicable.
invented entities (1)
  • stat-bot (statistics robot)
    purpose: A future AI-powered framework for automatic statistical analysis described in Section 6.1.
    The paper introduces this term as a speculative vision with no specification, implementation, or falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Applied Statistics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: A Review and Vision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DOLO7MM3

@misc{pith2026241210331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Applied Statistics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: A Review and Vision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DOLO7MM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10331}
}
read the original abstract

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has significantly changed many domains, including applied statistics. This review and vision paper explores the evolving role of applied statistics in the AI era, drawing from our experiences in engineering statistics. We begin by outlining the fundamental concepts and historical developments in applied statistics and tracing the rise of AI technologies. Subsequently, we review traditional areas of applied statistics, using examples from engineering statistics to illustrate key points. We then explore emerging areas in applied statistics, driven by recent technological advancements, highlighting examples from our recent projects. The paper discusses the symbiotic relationship between AI and applied statistics, focusing on how statistical principles can be employed to study the properties of AI models and enhance AI systems. We also examine how AI can advance applied statistics in terms of modeling and analysis. In conclusion, we reflect on the future role of statisticians. Our paper aims to shed light on the transformative impact of AI on applied statistics and inspire further exploration in this dynamic field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10331 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart for the main steps in applied statistics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the layout of Titan supercomputer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heatmap for the DBE failure proportion over the 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of data from two sensors, with each line shows a trajectory from the senor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of clustering results based on data from the four sensors stayed in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of the estimated mean trend, point predictions, and prediction interval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of model fitting and predictions based a traditional model (GPM, red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Possible causes of AI failures, summarized into three factors: model, environment, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of the CNN network architecture for frog leg image classification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of recurrent events data from Waymo (a), and plot of goodness of fit for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of the median metrics for various machine learning models and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson-Cook, C. M. and L. Lu (2023). Is D esigned D ata C ollection S till R elevant in the B ig D ata E ra? Quality and Reliability Engineering International\/ 39 , 1085--1101

    2023

  2. [2]

    Anscombe, F. J. (1973). Graphs in statistical analysis. The American Statistician\/ 27 , 17--21

    1973

  3. [3]

    Ayo-Vaughan, S. (2023). A brief history of data analytics. https://adunni.org/2023/10/17/brief-history-of-data/. Accessed 10-17-2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Barron, A. R. (1989). Statistical properties of artificial neural networks. In Proceedings of the 28th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, , pp.\ 280--285

    1989

  5. [5]

    Batarseh, F. A., L. Freeman, and C.-H. Huang (2021). A survey on artificial intelligence assurance. Journal of Big Data\/ 8\/ (1), 1--30

    2021

  6. [6]

    Bauer, B. and M. Kohler (2019). On deep learning as a remedy for the curse of dimensionality in nonparametric regression. The Annals of Statistics\/ 47\/ (4), 2261--2285

    2019

  7. [7]

    Box, G. E. P., W. G. Hunter, and J. S. Hunter (1978). Statistics for Experimenters . New York: John Wiley and Sons

    1978

  8. [8]

    Broniatowski, D. (2021). Psychological foundations of explainability and interpretability in artificial intelligence. NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), NIST, Gaithersburg, MD

    work page 2021

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    South, and E

    Brown, N., K. South, and E. S. Wiese (2022). The shortest path to ethics in AI : An integrated assignment where human concerns guide technical decisions. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 , ICER '22, New York, NY...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Chen, J. and Y. Liu (2021). Fatigue property prediction of additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V using probabilistic physics-guided learning. Additive Manufacturing\/ 39 , 101876

    2021

  3. [11]

    Cheng, B. and D. M. Titterington (1994). Neural networks: A review from a statistical perspective. Statistical Science\/ , 2--30

    1994

  4. [12]

    Cho, Y., Q. Do, P. Du, and Y. Hong (2024). Reliability study of battery lives: A functional degradation analysis approach. Annals of Applied Statistics\/ 18 , 3185--3204

    2024

  5. [13]

    Igbokwe, S

    Clark, A., D. Igbokwe, S. Ross, and M. F. Zibran (2024). A quantitative analysis of quality and consistency in AI -generated code. In 2024 7th International Conference on Software and System Engineering (ICoSSE) , pp.\ 37--41

    2024

  6. [14]

    Collett, D. (2023). Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research . Chapman and Hall/CRC

    2023

  7. [15]

    Colosimo, B. M., E. del Castillo, L. A. Jones-Farmer, and K. Paynabar (2021). Artificial intelligence and statistics for quality technology: an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Quality Technology\/ 53\/ (5), 443--453

    2021

  8. [16]

    Foggia, C

    Cotroneo, D., A. Foggia, C. Improta, P. Liguori, and R. Natella (2024). Automating the correctness assessment of AI -generated code for security contexts. Journal of Systems and Software\/ 216 , 112113

    2024

  9. [17]

    Cotroneo, D., R. D. Luca, and P. Liguori (2024). DeVAIC : A tool for security assessment of AI -generated code. arXiv: 2404.07548

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Christlein, S

    Deitsch, S., V. Christlein, S. Berger, C. Buerhop-Lutz, A. Maier, F. Gallwitz, and C. Riess (2019, June). Automatic classification of defective photovoltaic module cells in electroluminescence images. Solar Energy\/ 185 , 455--468

    2019

  11. [19]

    Chang, K

    Devlin, J., M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova (2019). BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tec...

    2019

  12. [20]

    Donoho, D. (2017). 50 years of data science. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics\/ 26\/ (4), 745--766

    2017

  13. [21]

    Duan, Y., Y. Hong, W. Q. Meeker, D. L. Stanley, and X. Gu (2017). Photodegradation modeling based on laboratory accelerated test data and predictions under outdoor weathering for polymeric materials. The Annals of Applied Statistics\/ , 2052--2079

    2017

  14. [22]

    Ellis, A. R. and E. Slade (2023). A new era of learning: Considerations for ChatGPT as a tool to enhance statistics and data science education. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education\/ 31\/ (2), 128--133

    2023

  15. [23]

    Pouget-Abadie, M

    Goodfellow, I., J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio (2014). Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Volume 27, pp.\ 2672--2680

    2014

  16. [24]

    Harskamp, R. E. and L. D. Clercq (2024). Performance of ChatGPT as an AI -assisted decision support tool in medicine: a proof-of-concept study for interpreting symptoms and management of common cardiac conditions (amstelheart-2). Acta Cardiologica\/ 79\/ (3), 358--366. PMID: 38348835

    2024

  17. [25]

    Hassani, H. and E. S. Silva (2023). The role of ChatGPT in data science: How AI -assisted conversational interfaces are revolutionizing the field. Big Data and Cognitive Computing\/ 7\/ (2)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Hayakawa, S. and T. Suzuki (2020). On the minimax optimality and superiority of deep neural network learning over sparse parameter spaces. Neural Networks\/ 123 , 343--361

    2020

  19. [27]

    Hoerl, R. W. and R. D. Snee (2010a). Moving the statistics profession forward to the next level. The American Statistician\/ 64 , 10--14

    2010

  20. [28]

    Hoerl, R. W. and R. D. Snee (2010b). Statistical thinking and methods in quality improvement: A look to the future. Quality Engineering\/ 22 , 119--129

    2010

  21. [29]

    Hong, S., Y. Lin, B. Liu, B. Liu, B. Wu, and Others (2024). Data interpreter: An LLM agent for data science. arXiv: 2402.18679

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hong, Y., J. Lian, L. Xu, J. Min, Y. Wang, L. J. Freeman, and X. Deng (2023). Statistical perspectives on reliability of artificial intelligence systems. Quality Engineering\/ 35\/ (1), 56--78

    2023

  23. [31]

    Lam, and H

    Huang, Z., H. Lam, and H. Zhang (2024). Efficient uncertainty quantification and reduction for over-parameterized neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems\/ 36

    2024

  24. [32]

    Idrisov, B. and T. Schlippe (2024). Program code generation with generative AIs . Algorithms\/ 17\/ (2)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Imaizumi, M. and K. Fukumizu (2019). Deep neural networks learn non-smooth functions effectively. In The 22nd international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics , pp.\ 869--878

    2019

  26. [34]

    Jantre, S., N. M. Urban, X. Qian, and B.-J. Yoon (2024). Learning active subspaces for effective and scalable uncertainty quantification in deep neural networks. In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pp.\ 5330--...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Jin, Z., J. Min, Y. Hong, P. Du, and Q. Yang (2024). Multivariate functional clustering with variable selection and application to sensor data from engineering systems. INFORMS Journal on Data Science, DOI: 10.1287/ijds.2022.0034\/

    2024

  28. [36]

    Holstein, F

    Kaniewski, S., D. Holstein, F. Schmidt, and T. Heer (2024). Vulnerability handling of AI -generated code -- existing solutions and open challenges. arXiv:2408.08549

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kenett, R. S. (2015). Statistics: A life cycle view. Quality Engineering\/ 27\/ (1), 111--121

    2015

  30. [38]

    Ohn, and D

    Kim, Y., I. Ohn, and D. Kim (2021). Fast convergence rates of deep neural networks for classification. Neural Networks\/ 138 , 179--197

    2021

  31. [39]

    King, C., Z. Xu, I. Lee, Y. Hong, et al. (2018). Reliability analysis of polymeric materials. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, DOI: 10.1002/9781118445112.stat08081\/

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Kohler, M. and S. Langer (2021). On the rate of convergence of fully connected deep neural network regression estimates. The Annals of Statistics\/ 49\/ (4), 2231--2249

    2021

  33. [41]

    Sutskever, and G

    Krizhevsky, A., I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton (2012). Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Volume 25, pp.\ 1097--1105

    2012

  34. [42]

    Kumar, D., P. K. Sarangi, and R. Verma (2022). A systematic review of stock market prediction using machine learning and statistical techniques. Materials Today: Proceedings\/ 49 , 3187--3191

    2022

  35. [43]

    Kwon, Y., J.-H. Won, B. J. Kim, and M. C. Paik (2020). Uncertainty quantification using bayesian neural networks in classification: Application to biomedical image segmentation. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis\/ 142 , 106816

    2020

  36. [44]

    Liu, Z., Y. Wang, S. Vaidya, F. Ruehle, J. Halverson, M. Soljacic, T. Y. Hou, and M. Tegmark (2024). KAN : Kolmogorov-arnold networks. arXiv: 2404.19756

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Brcic, F

    Longo, L., M. Brcic, F. Cabitza, J. Choi, R. Confalonieri, J. D. Ser, R. Guidotti, Y. Hayashi, F. Herrera, A. Holzinger, R. Jiang, H. Khosravi, F. Lecue, G. Malgieri, A. Páez, W. Samek, J. Schneider, T. Speith, and S. Stumpf (2024). Explainable artificial intelligence ( XAI ) ...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Matejka, J. and G. Fitzmaurice (2017). Same S tats, D ifferent G raphs: Generating D atasets with V aried A ppearance and I dentical S tatistics through S imulated A nnealing. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , New York, USA, pp.\...

    2017

  39. [47]

    McCarthy, J., M. L. Minsky, N. Rochester, and C. E. Shannon (2006, Dec.). A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence, august 31, 1955. AI Magazine\/ 27\/ (4), 12

    2006

  40. [48]

    McCulloch, W. S. and W. H. Pitts (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics\/ 5\/ (4), 115--133

    1943

  41. [49]

    McLeod, D. S. (2010). Of least concern? systematics of a cryptic species complex: Limnonectes kuhlii (amphibia: Anura: Dicroglossidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution\/ 56\/ (3), 991--1000

    2010

  42. [50]

    M., Y.-J

    Megahed, F. M., Y.-J. Chen, I. M. Zwetsloot, S. Knoth, D. C. Montgomery, and L. A. Jones-Farmer (2024). Introducing chatsqc: Enhancing statistical quality control with augmented ai. Journal of Quality Technology, in press\/

    2024

  43. [51]

    Min, J., Y. Hong, C. B. King, and W. Q. Meeker (2022). Reliability analysis of artificial intelligence systems using recurrent events data from autonomous vehicles. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics)\/ 71 , 987--1013

    2022

  44. [52]

    Min, J., Y. Hong, W. Meeker, and G. Ostrouchov (2023). A spatially correlated competing risks time-to-event model for supercomputer GPU failure data. arXiv: 2303.16369\/

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Olivier, A., M. D. Shields, and L. Graham-Brady (2021). Bayesian neural networks for uncertainty quantification in data-driven materials modeling. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering\/ 386 , 114079

    2021

  46. [54]

    Maxwell, R

    Ostrouchov, G., D. Maxwell, R. A. Ashraf, C. Engelmann, M. Shankar, and J. H. Rogers (2020). GPU lifetimes on Titan supercomputer: Survival analysis and reliability. In Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis...

    2020

  47. [55]

    Gauvreau, and H

    Pagano, M., K. Gauvreau, and H. Mattie (2022). Principles of Biostatistics . Chapman and Hall/CRC

    2022

  48. [56]

    Srivastava, D

    Perry, N., M. Srivastava, D. Kumar, and D. Boneh (2023). Do users write more insecure code with AI assistants? In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , CCS '23, pp.\ 2785--2799

    2023

  49. [57]

    Poldrack, R. A., T. Lu, and G. Begu s (2023). AI -assisted coding: Experiments with GPT -4. arXiv: 2304.13187

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Narasimhan, T

    Radford, A., K. Narasimhan, T. Salimans, and I. Sutskever (2018). Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. OpenAI, https://cdn.openai.com/research-covers/language-unsupervised/language_understanding_paper.pdf\/

    2018

  51. [59]

    Redman, T. C. and R. W. Hoerl (2024). AI and statistics: Perfect together. MIT Sloan Management Review (Online)\/ , 1--4

    2024

  52. [60]

    Rocha, R

    Ribeiro, V., A. Rocha, R. Peixoto, F. Portela, and M. F. Santos (2017). Importance of statistics for data mining and data science. In 2017 5th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud Workshops (FiCloudW) , pp.\ 156--163. IEEE

    2017

  53. [61]

    Rosenblatt, F. (1958). The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychological Review\/ 65\/ (6), 386--408

    1958

  54. [62]

    Rumelhart, D. E., G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams (1986). Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature\/ 323\/ (6088), 533--536

    1986

  55. [63]

    Schmidt-Hieber, A. J. (2020). Nonparametric regression using deep neural networks with ReLU activation function. Annals of statistics\/ 48\/ (4), 1875--1897

    2020

  56. [64]

    Wickramarachchi, and A

    Shyalika, C., R. Wickramarachchi, and A. Sheth (2023). A comprehensive survey on rare event prediction. arXiv: 2309.11356

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Odongo, F

    Song, X., K. Odongo, F. G. Pascual, and Y. Hong (2024). A comprehensive case study on the performance of machine learning methods on the classification of solar panel electroluminescence images. Journal of Quality Technology, in press\/

    2024

  58. [66]

    Gopalakrishna, A

    Srivastava, M., K. Gopalakrishna, A. M. Jaffar, C. S. Kumar, J. V. Bagade, and P. Naval (2024). Exploring the relationship between artificial intelligence and data science. In 2024 15th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) , ...

    2024

  59. [67]

    Steinberg, D. M. and E. Aronovich (2020). Thoughts on data science in business and industry. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry\/ 36\/ (1), 36--40

    2020

  60. [68]

    Stigler, S. (1990). The History of Statistics: The Measurement of Uncertainty before 1900 . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press

    1990

  61. [69]

    Tabassum, S., F. S. Pereira, S. Fernandes, and J. Gama (2018). Social network analysis: An overview. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery\/ 8\/ (5), e1256

    2018

  62. [70]

    Tufte, E. (1997). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information\/ (2nd ed.). Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press

    1997

  63. [71]

    Tufte, E. (2020). Seeing with Fresh Eyes: Meaning, Space, Data, Truth . Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press LLC

    2020

  64. [72]

    Tukey, J. W. (1962). The Future of Data Analysis . The Annals of Mathematical Statistics\/ 33\/ (1), 1 -- 67

    1962

  65. [73]

    Turing, A. M. (1936). On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society\/ 42\/ (1), 230--265. Reprinted in: ``Turing's Collected Works'' Vol. 1, pp. 116-154

    1936

  66. [74]

    Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind\/ 59\/ (236), 433--460

    1950

  67. [75]

    Zhang, K

    Wang, H., Q. Zhang, K. Wang, and X. Deng (2020). A statistics-guided approach to dimensional quality characterization of free-form surfaces with an application to 3D printing. Quality Engineering\/ 32\/ (4), 721--739

    2020

  68. [76]

    Wang, J., X. Luo, L. Cao, H. He, H. Huang, J. Xie, A. Jatowt, and Y. Cai (2024). Is your AI -generated code really safe? evaluating large language models on secure code generation with codeseceval. arXiv: 2407.02395\/

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Furman, N

    Wang, Y., S. Furman, N. Hardy, M. Ellis, G. Back, Y. Hong, and K. Cameron (2024). A detailed historical and statistical analysis of the influence of hardware artifacts on SPEC integer benchmark performance. IEEE Transactions on Computers\/ 73 , 1262--1274

    2024

  70. [78]

    Wang, Y., I.-C. Lee, Y. Hong, and X. Deng (2022). Building degradation index with variable selection for multivariate sensory data. Reliability Engineering & System Safety\/ 227 , 108704

    2022

  71. [79]

    Wang, Y., L. Xu, Y. Hong, R. Pan, T. Chang, T. Lux, J. Bernard, L. Watson, and K. Cameron (2023). Design strategies and approximation methods for high-performance computing variability management. Journal of Quality Technology\/ 55 , 88--103

    2023

  72. [80]

    Wessel, M. (2016). You D on't N eed B ig D ata - Y ou N eed the R ight D ata. https://hbr.org/2016/11/you-dont-need-big-data-you-need-the-right-data. Accessed: 11-12-2024

    2016

  73. [81]

    Wilcox, W. F. (1938). The founder of statistics. Review of the International Statistical Institute\/ 5 , 321--328

    1938

  74. [82]

    Wu, L. and S. A. Williamson (2024). Posterior uncertainty quantification in neural networks using data augmentation. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pp.\ 3376--3384

    2024

  75. [83]

    Xu, L., Y. Hong, M. Morris, and K. Cameron (2024). Prediction for distributional outcomes in high-performance computing input/output variability. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics)\/ 73 , 561--580

    2024

  76. [84]

    Xu, L., Y. Hong, E. Smith, D. S. McLeod, X. Deng, and L. J. Freeman (2023). Deep neural network identification of Limnonectes species and new class detection using image data. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics\/ 29 , 874--894

    2023

  77. [85]

    Xu, Z. and V. S. Sheng (2024). Detecting AI -generated code assignments using perplexity of large language models. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence\/ 38 , 23155--23162

    2024

  78. [86]

    Zhang, Y. and S. Muller (2024). Robust variable selection methods with cox model—a selective practical benchmark study. Briefings in bioinformatics\/ 25\/ (6), bbae508

    2024

  79. [87]

    Zheng, S., L. Lu, Y. Hong, and J. Liu (2023). Planning reliability assurance tests for autonomous vehicles. arXiv: 2312.00186\/

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.