Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2301.08276

Cross-validatory model selection for Bayesian autoregressions with exogenous regressors

Alex Cooper·Dan Simpson·Lauren Kennedy·Catherine Forbes·Aki Vehtari
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Bayesian cross-validation (CV) is a popular method for predictive model assessment that is simple to implement and broadly applicable. A wide range of CV schemes is available for time series applications, including generic leave-one-out (LOO) and K-fold methods, as well as specialized approaches intended to deal with serial dependence such as leave-future-out (LFO), h-block, and hv-block. Existing large-sample results show that both specialized and generic methods are applicable to models of serially-dependent data. However, large sample consistency results overlook the impact of sampling variability on accuracy in finite samples. Moreover, the accuracy of a CV scheme depends on many aspects of the procedure. We show that poor design choices can lead to elevated rates of adverse selection. In this paper, we consider the problem of identifying the regression component of an important class of models of data with serial dependence, autoregressions of order p with q exogenous regressors (ARX(p,q)), under the logarithmic scoring rule. We show that when serial dependence is present, scores computed using the joint (multivariate) density have lower variance and better model selection accuracy than the popular pointwise estimator. In addition, we present a detailed case study of the special case of ARX models with fixed autoregressive structure and variance. For this class, we derive the finite-sample distribution of the CV estimators and the model selection statistic. We conclude with recommendations for practitioners.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Alex Cooper, Dan Simpson, Lauren Kennedy, Catherine Forbes, Aki Vehtari. 2023-01-19. Cross-validatory model selection for Bayesian autoregressions with exogenous regressors. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08276

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↗