Profile likelihoods for parameters in Gaussian geostatistical models

Ruoyong Xu; Patrick Brown

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2305.04318

Profile likelihoods for parameters in Gaussian geostatistical models

Ruoyong Xu·Patrick Brown

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Profile likelihoods are rarely used in geostatistical models due to the computational burden imposed by repeated decompositions of large variance matrices. Accounting for uncertainty in covariance parameters can be highly consequential in geostatistical models as some covariance parameters are poorly identified, the problem is severe enough that the differentiability parameter of the Matern correlation function is typically treated as fixed. The problem is compounded with anisotropic spatial models as there are two additional parameters to consider. In this paper, we make the following contributions: 1, A methodology is created for profile likelihoods for Gaussian spatial models with Mat\'ern family of correlation functions, including anisotropic models. This methodology adopts a novel reparametrization for generation of representative points, and uses GPUs for parallel profile likelihoods computation in software implementation. 2, We show the profile likelihood of the Mat\'ern shape parameter is often quite flat but still identifiable, it can usually rule out very small values. 3, Simulation studies and applications on real data examples show that profile-based confidence intervals of covariance parameters and regression parameters have superior coverage to the traditional standard Wald type confidence intervals.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME stat.CO

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Ruoyong Xu, Patrick Brown. 2023-05-07. Profile likelihoods for parameters in Gaussian geostatistical models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.04318

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↗