Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1905.01059

Online Control of the False Coverage Rate and False Sign Rate

Asaf Weinstein·Aaditya Ramdas
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The false coverage rate (FCR) is the expected ratio of number of constructed confidence intervals (CIs) that fail to cover their respective parameters to the total number of constructed CIs. Procedures for FCR control exist in the offline setting, but none so far have been designed with the online setting in mind. In the online setting, there is an infinite sequence of fixed unknown parameters $\theta_t$ ordered by time. At each step, we see independent data that is informative about $\theta_t$, and must immediately make a decision whether to report a CI for $\theta_t$ or not. If $\theta_t$ is selected for coverage, the task is to determine how to construct a CI for $\theta_t$ such that $\text{FCR} \leq \alpha$ for any $T\in \mathbb{N}$. A straightforward solution is to construct at each step a $(1-\alpha)$ level conditional CI. In this paper, we present a novel solution to the problem inspired by online false discovery rate (FDR) algorithms, which only requires the statistician to be able to construct a marginal CI at any given level. Apart from the fact that marginal CIs are usually simpler to construct than conditional ones, the marginal procedure has an important qualitative advantage over the conditional solution, namely, it allows selection to be determined by the candidate CI itself. We take advantage of this to offer solutions to some online problems which have not been addressed before. For example, we show that our general CI procedure can be used to devise online sign-classification procedures that control the false sign rate (FSR). In terms of power and length of the constructed CIs, we demonstrate that the two approaches have complementary strengths and weaknesses using simulations. Last, all of our methodology applies equally well to online FCR control for prediction intervals, having particular implications for assumption-free selective conformal inference.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Asaf Weinstein, Aaditya Ramdas. 2019-05-03. Online Control of the False Coverage Rate and False Sign Rate. https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01059

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↗