The Influence of Nuisance Parameter Uncertainty on Statistical Inference in Practical Data Science Models

Yunrong Wan

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2406.15078

The Influence of Nuisance Parameter Uncertainty on Statistical Inference in Practical Data Science Models

Yunrong Wan

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

For multiple reasons -- such as avoiding overtraining from one data set or because of having received numerical estimates for some parameters in a model from an alternative source -- it is sometimes useful to divide a model's parameters into one group of primary parameters and one group of nuisance parameters. However, uncertainty in the values of nuisance parameters is an inevitable factor that impacts the model's reliability. This paper examines the issue of uncertainty calculation for primary parameters of interest in the presence of nuisance parameters. We illustrate a general procedure on two distinct model forms: 1) the GARCH time series model with univariate nuisance parameter and 2) multiple hidden layer feed-forward neural network models with multivariate nuisance parameters. Leveraging an existing theoretical framework for nuisance parameter uncertainty, we show how to modify the confidence regions for the primary parameters while considering the inherent uncertainty introduced by nuisance parameters. Furthermore, our study validates the practical effectiveness of adjusted confidence regions that properly account for uncertainty in nuisance parameters. Such an adjustment helps data scientists produce results that more honestly reflect the overall uncertainty.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME stat.AP

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Yunrong Wan. 2024-06-21. The Influence of Nuisance Parameter Uncertainty on Statistical Inference in Practical Data Science Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.15078

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↗