Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2408.11994

Fast and robust cross-validation-based scoring rule inference for spatial statistics

Helga Kristin Olafsdottir·Holger Rootzén·David Bolin
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Scoring rules are aimed at evaluation of the quality of predictions, but can also be used for estimation of parameters in statistical models. We propose estimating parameters of multivariate spatial models by maximising the average leave-one-out cross-validation score. This method, LOOS, thus optimises predictions instead of maximising the likelihood. The method allows for fast computations for Gaussian models with sparse precision matrices, such as spatial Markov models. It also makes it possible to tailor the estimator's robustness to outliers and their sensitivity to spatial variations of uncertainty through the choice of the scoring rule which is used in the maximisation. The effects of the choice of scoring rule which is used in LOOS are studied by simulation in terms of computation time, statistical efficiency, and robustness. Various popular scoring rules and a new scoring rule, the root score, are compared to maximum likelihood estimation. The results confirmed that for spatial Markov models the computation time for LOOS was much smaller than for maximum likelihood estimation. Furthermore, the standard deviations of parameter estimates were smaller for maximum likelihood estimation, although the differences often were small. The simulations also confirmed that the usage of a robust scoring rule results in robust LOOS estimates and that the robustness provides better predictive quality for spatial data with outliers. Finally, the new inference method was applied to ERA5 temperature reanalysis data for the contiguous United States and the average July temperature for the years 1940 to 2023, and this showed that the LOOS estimator provided parameter estimates that were more than a hundred times faster to compute compared to maximum-likelihood estimation, and resulted in a model with better predictive performance.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Helga Kristin Olafsdottir, Holger Rootzén, David Bolin. 2024-08-21. Fast and robust cross-validation-based scoring rule inference for spatial statistics. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11994

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↗