Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0808.0777

A Conversation with Peter Huber

Andreas Buja·Hans R. Künsch
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Peter J. Huber was born on March 25, 1934, in Wohlen, a small town in the Swiss countryside. He obtained a diploma in mathematics in 1958 and a Ph.D. in mathematics in 1961, both from ETH Zurich. His thesis was in pure mathematics, but he then decided to go into statistics. He spent 1961--1963 as a postdoc at the statistics department in Berkeley where he wrote his first and most famous paper on robust statistics, ``Robust Estimation of a Location Parameter.'' After a position as a visiting professor at Cornell University, he became a full professor at ETH Zurich. He worked at ETH until 1978, interspersed by visiting positions at Cornell, Yale, Princeton and Harvard. After leaving ETH, he held professor positions at Harvard University 1978--1988, at MIT 1988--1992, and finally at the University of Bayreuth from 1992 until his retirement in 1999. He now lives in Klosters, a village in the Grisons in the Swiss Alps. Peter Huber has published four books and over 70 papers on statistics and data analysis. In addition, he has written more than a dozen papers and two books on Babylonian mathematics, astronomy and history. In 1972, he delivered the Wald lectures. He is a fellow of the IMS, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1988 he received a Humboldt Award and in 1994 an honorary doctorate from the University of Neuchâtel. In addition to his fundamental results in robust statistics, Peter Huber made important contributions to computational statistics, strategies in data analysis, and applications of statistics in fields such as crystallography, EEGs, and human growth curves.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Andreas Buja, Hans R. Künsch. 2008-08-06. A Conversation with Peter Huber. https://doi.org/10.1214/07-sts251

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗