Model-assisted survey sampling with Bayesian optimization

Jonne Pohjankukka; Sakari Tuominen; Jukka Heikkonen

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2401.14902

Model-assisted survey sampling with Bayesian optimization

Jonne Pohjankukka·Sakari Tuominen·Jukka Heikkonen

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Survey sampling plays an important role in the efficient allocation and management of resources. The essence of survey sampling lies in acquiring a sample of data points from a population and subsequently using this sample to estimate the population parameters of the targeted response variable, such as environmental-related metrics or other pertinent factors. Practical limitations imposed on survey sampling necessitate prudent consideration of the number of samples attainable from the study areas, given the constraints of a fixed budget. To this end, researchers are compelled to employ sampling designs that optimize sample allocations to the best of their ability. Generally, probability sampling serves as the preferred method, ensuring an unbiased estimation of population parameters. Evaluating the efficiency of estimators involves assessing their variances and benchmarking them against alternative baseline approaches, such as simple random sampling. In this study, we propose a novel model-assisted unbiased probability sampling method that leverages Bayesian optimization for the determination of sampling designs. As a result, this approach can yield in estimators with more efficient variance outcomes compared to the conventional estimators such as the Horvitz-Thompson. Furthermore, we test the proposed method in a simulation study using an empirical dataset covering plot-level tree volume from central Finland. The results demonstrate statistically significant improved performance for the proposed method when compared to the baseline.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jonne Pohjankukka, Sakari Tuominen, Jukka Heikkonen. 2024-01-26. Model-assisted survey sampling with Bayesian optimization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14902

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↗