Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1912.02633

Another look at the Lady Tasting Tea and differences between permutation tests and randomization tests

Jesse Hemerik·Jelle J. Goeman
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The statistical literature is known to be inconsistent in the use of the terms "permutation test" and "randomization test". Several authors succesfully argue that these terms should be used to refer to two distinct classes of tests and that there are major conceptual differences between these classes. The present paper explains an important difference in mathematical reasoning between these classes: a permutation test fundamentally requires that the set of permutations has a group structure, in the algebraic sense; the reasoning behind a randomization test is not based on such a group structure and it is possible to use an experimental design that does not correspond to a group. In particular, we can use a randomization scheme where the number of possible treatment patterns is larger than in standard experimental designs. This leads to exact \emph{p}-values of improved resolution, providing increased power for very small significance levels, at the cost of decreased power for larger significance levels. We discuss applications in randomized trials and elsewhere. Further, we explain that Fisher's famous Lady Tasting Tea experiment, which is commonly referred to as the first permutation test, is in fact a randomization test. This distinction is important to avoid confusion and invalid tests.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jesse Hemerik, Jelle J. Goeman. 2019-12-05. Another look at the Lady Tasting Tea and differences between permutation tests and randomization tests. https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12431

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↗