Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1011.6517

A Conversation with Martin Bradbury Wilk

Abstract

Martin Bradbury Wilk was born on December 18, 1922, in Montréal, Québec, Canada. He completed a B.Eng. degree in Chemical Engineering in 1945 at McGill University and worked as a Research Engineer on the Atomic Energy Project for the National Research Council of Canada from 1945 to 1950. He then went to Iowa State College, where he completed a M.Sc. and a Ph.D. degree in Statistics in 1953 and 1955, respectively. After a one-year post-doc with John Tukey, he became Assistant Director of the Statistical Techniques Research Group at Princeton University in 1956--1957, and then served as Professor and Director of Research in Statistics at Rutgers University from 1959 to 1963. In parallel, he also had a 14-year career at Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey. From 1956 to 1969, he was in turn Member of Technical Staff, Head of the Statistical Models and Methods Research Department, and Statistical Director in Management Sciences Research. He wrote a number of influential papers in statistical methodology during that period, notably testing procedures for normality (the Shapiro--Wilk statistic) and probability plotting techniques for multivariate data. In 1970, Martin moved into higher management levels of the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Company. He occupied various positions culminating as Assistant Vice-President and Director of Corporate Planning. In 1980, he returned to Canada and became the first professional statistician to serve as Chief Statistician. His accomplishments at Statistics Canada were numerous and contributed to a resurgence of the institution's international standing. He played a crucial role in the reinstatement of the Cabinet-cancelled 1986 Census.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Christian Genest, Gordon Brackstone. 2010-11-30. A Conversation with Martin Bradbury Wilk. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-sts272

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Why is Regularization Underused? An Empirical Study on Trust and Adoption of Statistical Methods

Statistical practice does not automatically follow methodological innovation. Regularization methods, widely advocated to reduce overfitting and stabilize inference, are readily available in modern software, but are not consistently used by data analysts. We investigate this implementation gap in a large-scale empirical study of trust in, and acceptance of, regularization techniques, based on $N = 606$ data analysts. Drawing on measurement frameworks from technology acceptance research, we survey practitioners and embed a randomized experiment to test whether written recommendation of regularization methods increases trust or intended use. We find no evidence of such an effect. Instead, adoption intentions are strongly associated with analysts' perceptions of ease of implementation and practical benefit, such as improved bias control or interpretability. Perceived social norms also emerge as a central driver. These results indicate that uptake of statistical methodology depends less on formal recommendations than on usability, perceived utility, and community practice.

stat.OT

Exact analysis of a split--merge queue with latent Erlang-factor dependent subtask times

This paper studies a two-server split--merge queue with positively dependent subtask service times modeled through a latent-factor bivariate Erlang construction. An exact characterization of the split--merge completion time is obtained, including explicit formulas for its first two moments and the resulting mean waiting time. Under fixed marginal service-time distributions, independence is shown to stochastically increase the completion time and hence overestimate mean waiting time. Numerical illustrations show that this benchmark gap can be substantial.

stat.OT

Statistical Compatibility, Refutational Information, and Acceptability

This paper develops an interpretive framework for divergence P-values and S-values within a descriptive frequentist perspective. Statistical analysis is framed as operating within idealized worlds defined by a set of assumptions and a target hypothesis, where probabilities describe the behavior of data under the model but do not assign truth values to hypotheses. Within this view, P-values are interpreted as graded indices of compatibility between the observed result and the predictions generated by the assumed model; accordingly, small P-values should not be read as indicating logical impossibility or strict inconsistency of the model itself. Building on this distinction, the paper argues that practical inference requires moving beyond the internal logic of the model toward judgments of overall acceptability, which depend not only on data-model compatibility but also on multiple contextual considerations such as subject-matter knowledge, plausibility of assumptions, data quality, usefulness, and loss - all interpreted through the competence, intentions, perceptions, and moral values of the specific analyst. S-values are therefore interpreted not as evidence against the epistemic status of the model, but as a specific form of refutational information that contributes to the broader body of information used by the analyst to judge whether a model remains acceptable for an intended practical purpose. The paper also examines the linguistic and conceptual risks associated with the language of incompatibility, distinguishes probability from rarity, and clarifies different notions of surprise - including a possible definition of Shannon-type surprise, to be distinguished from Bayesian belief revision. Overall, the article proposes a more cautious and explicit interpretation of frequentist measures, centered on model-based description, analyst responsibility, and decision acceptability.

stat.OT