[mturmon]

"In writing this book I had one more goal in mind: I wanted to stress the practical power of abstract reasoning. The point is that during the last few years at different computer science conferences, I heard reiteration of the following claim:

  Complex theories do not work, simple algorithms do.

"One of the goals of this book is to show that, at least in the problems of statistical inference, this is not true. I would like to demonstrate that in this area of science a good old principle is valid:

  Nothing is more practical than a good theory.

-- From Vapnik's preface to The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory

*

Vapnik is not well-described as a "theory guy". That implies that he's not interested in connections between theory and practice, and this is most profoundly not the case. He has arguably been the most successful ML researcher ever as far as connecting abstract theory to real-world outcomes.

Besides the SVM: the VC dimension started out as a lemma regarding set counting, and he pushed it to the surprising (even shocking) conclusion of universal consistency for very general classes of estimators.

[robrenaud]

I guess it depends on what kind of semantics you apply to "theory guy". In my mind it's not at all dismissive.

I mean it in it a foundation sense, rather than an applications sense. He has done great work with a whiteboard and pure thought, without the need for terabytes of data and thousands of machines.

[mturmon]

Remember, though, that the AT&T group Vladimir came from, and that informed his work, was much in the mold of linking theory and practice. Where "practice" (at that time) was working on the handwritten digit problem -- the now-cliche NIST dataset.