SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2510.24453

Comparison of Estimators for Multi-State Models in Potentially Non-Markov Processes

Abstract

Various estimators for modelling the transition probabilities in multi-state models have been proposed, e.g., the Aalen-Johansen estimator, the landmark Aalen-Johansen estimator, and a hybrid Aalen-Johansen estimator. While the Aalen-Johansen estimator is generally only consistent under the rather restrictive Markov assumption, the landmark Aalen-Johansen estimator can handle non-Markov multi-state models. However, the landmark Aalen-Johansen estimator leads to a strict data reduction and, thus, to an increased variance. The hybrid Aalen-Johansen estimator serves as a compromise by, firstly, checking with a log-rank-based test whether the Markov assumption is satisfied. Secondly, landmarking is only applied if the Markov assumption is rejected. In this work, we propose a new hybrid Aalen-Johansen estimator which uses a Cox model instead of the log-rank-based test to check the Markov assumption in the first step. Furthermore, we compare the four estimators in an extensive simulation study across Markov, semi-Markov, and distinct non-Markov settings. In order to get deep insights into the performance of the estimators, we consider four different measures: bias, variance, root mean squared error, and coverage rate. Additionally, further influential factors on the estimators such as the form and degree of non-Markov behaviour, the different transitions, and the starting time are analysed. The main result of the simulation study is that the hybrid Aalen-Johansen estimators yield favourable results across various measures and settings.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Carolin Drenda, Dennis Dobler, Merle Munko, Andrew Titman. 2025-10-28. Comparison of Estimators for Multi-State Models in Potentially Non-Markov Processes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.24453

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