Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2403.05503

Linear Model Estimators and Consistency under an Infill Asymptotic Domain

Cory W. Natoli·Edward D. White·Beau A. Nunnally·Alex J. Gutman·Raymond R. Hill
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Functional data present as functions or curves possessing a spatial or temporal component. These components by nature have a fixed observational domain. Consequently, any asymptotic investigation requires modelling the increased correlation among observations as density increases due to this fixed domain constraint. One such appropriate stochastic process is the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. Utilizing this spatial autoregressive process, we demonstrate that parameter estimators for a simple linear regression model display inconsistency in an infill asymptotic domain. Such results are contrary to those expected under the customary increasing domain asymptotics. Although none of these estimator variances approach zero, they do display a pattern of diminishing return regarding decreasing estimator variance as sample size increases. This may prove invaluable to a practitioner as this indicates perhaps an optimal sample size to cease data collection. This in turn reduces time and data collection cost because little information is gained in sampling beyond a certain sample size.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEmath.STstat.TH

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Cory W. Natoli, Edward D. White, Beau A. Nunnally, Alex J. Gutman, Raymond R. Hill. 2024-03-08. Linear Model Estimators and Consistency under an Infill Asymptotic Domain. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05503

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↗