SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2307.02052

Replicability of Simulation Studies for the Investigation of Statistical Methods: The RepliSims Project

Abstract

Results of simulation studies evaluating the performance of statistical methods are often considered actionable and thus can have a major impact on the way empirical research is implemented. However, so far there is limited evidence about the reproducibility and replicability of statistical simulation studies. Therefore, eight highly cited statistical simulation studies were selected, and their replicability was assessed by teams of replicators with formal training in quantitative methodology. The teams found relevant information in the original publications and used it to write simulation code with the aim of replicating the results. The primary outcome was the feasibility of replicability based on reported information in the original publications. Replicability varied greatly: Some original studies provided detailed information leading to almost perfect replication of results, whereas other studies did not provide enough information to implement any of the reported simulations. Replicators had to make choices regarding missing or ambiguous information in the original studies, error handling, and software environment. Factors facilitating replication included public availability of code, and descriptions of the data-generating procedure and methods in graphs, formulas, structured text, and publicly accessible additional resources such as technical reports. Replicability of statistical simulation studies was mainly impeded by lack of information and sustainability of information sources. Reproducibility could be achieved for simulation studies by providing open code and data as a supplement to the publication. Additionally, simulation studies should be transparently reported with all relevant information either in the research paper itself or in easily accessible supplementary material to allow for replicability.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

K. Luijken, A. Lohmann, U. Alter, J. Claramunt Gonzalez, F. J. Clouth, J. L. Fossum, L. Hesen, A. H. J. Huizing, J. Ketelaar, A. K. Montoya, L. Nab, R. C. C. Nijman, B. B. L. Penning de Vries, T. D. Tibbe, Y. A. Wang, R. H. H. Groenwold. 2023-07-05. Replicability of Simulation Studies for the Investigation of Statistical Methods: The RepliSims Project. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02052

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