Archive for Warwick Data Science Institute

five postdoc positions in top UK universities & Bayesian health data science

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 30, 2018 by xi'an

The EPSRC programme New Approaches to Bayesian Data Science: Tackling Challenges from the Health Sciences, directed by Paul Fearnhead, is offering five 3 or 4 year PDRA positions at the Universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Lancaster, Oxford, and Warwick. Here is the complete call:

Salary:   £29,799 to £38,833
Closing Date:   Thursday 26 April 2018
Interview Date:   Friday 11 May 2018

We invite applications for Post-Doctoral Research Associates to join the New Approaches to Bayesian Data Science: Tackling Challenges from the Health Sciences programme. This is an exciting, cross-disciplinary research project that will develop new methods for Bayesian statistics that are fit-for-purpose to tackle contemporary Health Science challenges: such as real-time inference and prediction for large scale epidemics; or synthesizing information from distinct data sources for large scale studies such as the UK Biobank. Methodological challenges will be around making Bayesian methods scalable to big-data and robust to (unavoidable) model errors.

This £3M programme is funded by EPSRC, and brings together research groups from the Universities of Lancaster, Bristol, Cambridge, Oxford and Warwick. There is either a 4 or a 3 year position available at each of these five partner institutions.

You should have, or be close to completing, a PhD in Statistics or a related discipline. You will be experienced in one or more of the following areas: Bayesian statistics, computational statistics, statistical machine learning, statistical genetics, inference for epidemics. You will have demonstrated the ability to develop new statistical methodology. We are particularly keen to encourage applicants with strong computational skills, and are looking to put together a team of researchers with skills that cover theoretical, methodological and applied statistics. A demonstrable ability to produce academic writing of the highest publishable quality is essential.

Applicants must apply through Lancaster University’s website for the Lancaster, Oxford, Bristol and Warwick posts.  Please ensure you state clearly which position or positions you wish to be considered for when applying. For applications to the MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge vacancy please go to their website.

Candidates who are considering making an application are strongly encouraged to contact Professor Paul Fearnhead (p.fearnhead@lancaster.ac.uk), Sylvia Richardson (sylvia.richardson@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk), Christophe Andrieu (c.andrieu@bristol.ac.uk), Chris Holmes (c.holmes@stats.ox.ac.uk) or Gareth Roberts (Gareth.O.Roberts@warwick.ac.uk) to discuss the programme in greater detail.

We welcome applications from people in all diversity groups.

 

years (and years) of data science

Posted in Books, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 4, 2016 by xi'an

In preparation for the round table at the start of the MCMSkv conference, this afternoon, Anto sent us a paper written by David Donoho for the Tukey Centennial workshop, held in Princeton last September. Entitled 50 years of Data Science. And which attracted a whole round of comments, judging from the Google search results. So much that I decided not to read any of them before parsing through the paper. But almost certainly reproducing here with my two cents some of the previous comments.

“John Tukey’s definition of `Big Data’ was `anything that won’t fit on one device’.”

The complaint that data science is essentially statistics that does not dare to spell out statistics as if it were a ten letter word (p.5) is not new, if appropriate. In this paper, David Donoho evacuates the memes that supposedly separate data science from statistics, like “big data” (although I doubt non-statisticians would accept the quick rejection that easily, wondering at the ability of statisticians to develop big models), skills like parallel programming (which ineluctably leads to more rudimentary algorithms and inferential techniques), jobs requiring such a vast array of skills and experience that no graduate student sounds properly trained for it…

“A call to action, from a statistician who fells `the train is leaving the station’.” (p.12)

One point of the paper is to see 1962 John Tukey’s “The Future of Data Analysis” as prophetical of the “Big Data” and “Data Science” crises. Which makes a lot of sense when considering the four driving forces advanced by Tukey (p.11):

  1. formal statistics
  2. advanced computing and graphical devices
  3. the ability to face ever-growing data flows
  4. its adoption by an ever-wider range of fields

“Science about data science will grow dramatically in significance.”

David Donoho then moves on to incorporate   Leo Breiman’s 2001 Two Cultures paper. Which separates machine learning and prediction from statistics and inference, leading to the “big chasm”! And he sees the combination of prediction with “common task framework” as the “secret sauce” of machine learning, because of the possibility of objective comparison of methods on a testing dataset. Which does not seem to me as the explanation for the current (real or perceived) disaffection for statistics and correlated attraction for more computer-related solutions. A code that wins a Kaggle challenge clearly has some efficient characteristics, but this tells me nothing of the abilities of the methodology behind that code. If any. Self-learning how to play chess within 72 hours is great, but is the principle behind able to handle go at the same level?  Plus, I remain worried about the (screaming) absence of model (or models) in predictive approaches. Or at least skeptical. For the same reason it does not help in producing a generic approach to problems. Nor an approximation to the underlying mechanism. I thus see nothing but a black box in many “predictive models”, which tells me nothing about the uncertainty, imprecision or reproducibility of such tools. “Tool evaluation” cannot be reduced to a final score on a testing benchmark. The paper concludes with the prediction that the validation of scientific methodology will solely be empirical (p.37). This leaves little ground if any for probability and uncertainty quantification, as reflected their absence in the paper.

position at Warwick

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , on September 17, 2014 by xi'an

the pond in front of the Zeeman building, University of Warwick, July 01, 2014the pond in front of the Zeeman building, University of Warwick, July 01, 2014the pond in front of the Zeeman building, University of Warwick, July 01, 2014

A new position for the of Professor Of Statistics and Data Science / Director of the [newly created] Warwick Data Science Institute has been posted. To quote from the job description, “the position arises from the Department of Statistics’ commitment, in collaboration with the Warwick Mathematics Institute and the Department of Computer Science, to a coherent methodological approach to the fundamentals of Data Science and the challenges of complex data sets (for example big data).”  The interview date is November 27, 2014. All details available here.