arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.29629

Statistical Leadership of What? Statistics After AI

Anders Gorst-Rasmussen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Statisticians have spent over a century arguing that we are more than calculators, usually by pointing to what else we know. AI is making that defense harder, since the list of what only statisticians can do grows shorter with each model release. AI makes claims cheap to generate and may eventually make the statistics behind them cheap too. However, a model cannot be answerable in the way that statistical practice requires. Statistical leadership then becomes a question of which claims we are there to answer for, including the ones we answer for in advance by building judgment into systems.

Explore related subjects

stat.OT

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Anders Gorst-Rasmussen. 2026-08-30. Statistical Leadership of What? Statistics After AI. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29629

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Design and Implementation of a Virtual Statistical Computing Lab to Teach R Coding to Introductory Statistics Students

Motivated by national calls for computationally enriched, data-centric instruction across the statistics curriculum, this study investigates the design, implementation, and impact of a Virtual Statistical Computing Lab (VSCL) integrated into an introductory statistics course at a medium-sized minority-serving university in the USA. The redesigned course embedded R-based coding through two virtual lab formats: Design I (a static Posit Cloud environment) and Design II (an interactive learnr-based interface). Using a quasi-experimental design across three instructional formats, traditional (no lab), Design I, and Design II, we evaluated students' conceptual learning gains, levels of data science (DS) readiness, and DS aspirations. The results indicated significant learning gains across all groups, with the highest gains observed in Design II. Students in both VSCL formats achieved greater gains in DS readiness than the traditional group, with Design II again yielding the largest gains across the demographic subgroups. Conversely, DS aspirations remained low or declined, suggesting a gap between skill acquisition and long-term interest. These findings highlight the value of structured, interactive computing environments in supporting statistical reasoning and building confidence in modern data tools. They also point to the need for intentional curricular bridges and career mentoring to help students translate early computing exposure into sustained academic and professional pathways in statistics and data science.

stat.OT↗
arXiv2026

Statistical Theory in the Age of Machine-Assisted Mathematics: Rethinking How Theory Is Made and Taught

The computational revolution is advancing at an unprecedented pace. The combination of proof-assistant technologies and generative AI tools has recently enabled the solution of complex problems in pure mathematics at a scale that seemed unattainable only a few years ago. However, these technologies have not yet become standard tools in the development of statistical theory. In this paper, we do not present new theoretical results. Instead, we discuss five case studies involving classical problems in statistics and describe how they can be analyzed using a machine proof-checking. Our goal is not to propose a definitive workflow, but to stimulate reflection on how these technologies may transform theoretical research and advanced statistical education. We focus on two main aspects. First, statistical theory often compresses substantial mathematical content into expressions such as "under the usual regularity conditions". Formalization in a machine-verifiable language forces each assumption to be explicit, reveal hidden dependencies, and provide a deeper understanding of the formalized objects. Second, we argue that the statistical community could benefit from a collaborative effort to build repositories of formalized axioms, definitions, and theorems, supporting more precise and reliable theoretical developments. Finally, we discuss the role of these tools in graduate education. Just as high-level programming languages revolutionized empirical research by enabling rapid experimentation and prototyping, machine-assisted formalization may introduce a new paradigm for the development, verification, and communication of statistical theory.

stat.OT↗
arXiv2026

When to take one box, when to take two: A concrete analysis of Newcomb's problem

Fifty-seven years of debate have not led to a consensus on Newcomb's problem. I argue that this failure comes from not viewing the problem in concrete terms, for which common-sense intuitions are clearly applicable. If near-perfect predictions are not required - only predictions good enough that Evidential Decision Theory (EDT) recommends taking only one box - Newcomb scenarios without any fantastic elements are actually feasible. I give a detailed account of such concrete scenarios, in which the decision-maker has varying amounts of information about the prediction process. I argue that in these scenarios it is rational to take both boxes, as Causal Decision Theory (CDT) recommends. To make this more convincing, I introduce a simpler impersonal Newcomb problem, also with a concrete realization, to help bridge causal intuitions from everyday decisions to the standard Newcomb scenario. I also argue that Newcomb's problem with nearly perfect predictions can only be realized by a (currently fantastic) process in which the Predictor accurately simulates the thoughts of a Participant. In a functionalist view of consciousness, this simulation will be a conscious entity, whose experience will not be distinguishable from that of a ``real'' person. In this scenario, CDT recommends taking one box. I conclude that when Newcomb's problem is properly analysed in concrete terms, CDT gives the correct answer in all scenarios.

stat.OT↗