Computer Age Statistical Inference: Algorithms, Evidence and Data Science
web.stanford.edu
web.stanford.edu
pdfcrop --verbose --margins "20 30 20 30" --bbox "110 180 440 740" casi.pdf
trims the over-large margins without clipping any content.http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/precise/en/man1/pdfcrop....
Error! Bounding Box borders imply page width of zero. Error! Bounding Box borders imply page height of zero.
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/jeh/book%20June%2014,%202017pdf.pd... ?
CASI looks very cutting edge, but also covers the origins of the use of computers for statistical methods. So this covers how computers can and have been used to do statistics.
FoDS looks like a very thorough data science book. Less of a "then VS now" book and more of a collection of what you need as a data scientist.
In CASI, I like the chapter on FDR, a very important topic not found in FoDS (?!). FDR is critical for correcting for multiple testing, seems essential for data science but maybe the authors consider it cutting edge and not foundational. However, the wavelet chapter in FoDS makes me happy, a very useful topic for series data.
Both great books, thanks for the links!
Thanks!
Not to be confused with this one: https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/ElemStatLearn/ (a.k.a. ESL)
It's more a good book for introduction bayesian statistic. And it's super math/stat lite.
If you really want to stick with Bayesian Statistic and need a comprehendsive stat for a foundation a better book would be: Doing Bayesian Data Analysis by John K. Kruschke.
Hastie iirc is one of the two responsible for LASSO, Ridge, and I think elasticnet.
I believe Hastie has done lots of work on LASSO/L_1 norm related regularization methods and algorithms though.
This books seems like a historical survey of how things came to be, rather than a practical guide. I believe this is not a book for practitioners, but for someone who is looking to advance the field (researchers, Ph.D. students).
As someone who was in academia in 12 years, I think it is immensely valuable to have a survey like this because too often new researchers don't have a clear idea what has been tried before and why they failed or succeeded.