SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1301.4240

Hypothesis Testing in High-Dimensional Regression under the Gaussian Random Design Model: Asymptotic Theory

Abstract

We consider linear regression in the high-dimensional regime where the number of observations $n$ is smaller than the number of parameters $p$. A very successful approach in this setting uses $\ell_1$-penalized least squares (a.k.a. the Lasso) to search for a subset of $s_0< n$ parameters that best explain the data, while setting the other parameters to zero. Considerable amount of work has been devoted to characterizing the estimation and model selection problems within this approach. In this paper we consider instead the fundamental, but far less understood, question of \emph{statistical significance}. More precisely, we address the problem of computing p-values for single regression coefficients. On one hand, we develop a general upper bound on the minimax power of tests with a given significance level. On the other, we prove that this upper bound is (nearly) achievable through a practical procedure in the case of random design matrices with independent entries. Our approach is based on a debiasing of the Lasso estimator. The analysis builds on a rigorous characterization of the asymptotic distribution of the Lasso estimator and its debiased version. Our result holds for optimal sample size, i.e., when $n$ is at least on the order of $s_0 \log(p/s_0)$. We generalize our approach to random design matrices with i.i.d. Gaussian rows $x_i\sim N(0,Σ)$. In this case we prove that a similar distributional characterization (termed `standard distributional limit') holds for $n$ much larger than $s_0(\log p)^2$. Finally, we show that for optimal sample size, $n$ being at least of order $s_0 \log(p/s_0)$, the standard distributional limit for general Gaussian designs can be derived from the replica heuristics in statistical physics.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Adel Javanmard, Andrea Montanari. 2014-02-04. Hypothesis Testing in High-Dimensional Regression under the Gaussian Random Design Model: Asymptotic Theory. https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4240

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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