SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2601.17734

Group Permutation Testing in Linear Model: Sharp Validity, Power Improvement, and Extension Beyond Exchangeability

Abstract

We consider finite-sample inference for a single regression coefficient in the fixed-design linear model $Y = Z\beta + bX + \varepsilon$, where $\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R}^n$ may exhibit complex dependence or heterogeneity. We develop a group permutation framework, yielding a unified and analyzable randomization structure for linear-model testing. Under exchangeable errors, we place permutation-augmented regression tests within this group-theoretic setting and show that a grouped version of PALMRT controls Type I error at level at most $2\alpha$ for any permutation group; moreover, we provide an worst-case construction demonstrating that the factor $2$ is sharp and cannot be improved without additional assumptions. Second, we relate the Type II error to a design-dependent geometric separation. We formulate it as a combinatorial optimization problem over permutation groups and bound it under additional mild sub-Gaussian assumptions. For the Type II error upper bound control, we propose a constructive algorithm for the permutation strategy that is better (at least no worse) than the i.i.d. permutation, with simulations empirically indicating substantial power gains, especially under heavy-tailed designs. Finally, we extend group-based CPT and PALMRT beyond exchangeability by connecting rank-based randomization arguments to conformal inference. The resulting weighted group tests satisfy finite-sample Type I error bounds that degrade gracefully with a weighted average of total variation distances between $\varepsilon$ and its group-permuted versions, recovering exact validity when these discrepancies vanish and yielding quantitative robustness otherwise. Taken together, the group-permutation viewpoint provides a principled bridge from exact randomization validity to design-adaptive power and quantitative robustness under approximate symmetries.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zonghan Li, Hongyi Zhou, Zhiheng Zhang. 2026-01-25. Group Permutation Testing in Linear Model: Sharp Validity, Power Improvement, and Extension Beyond Exchangeability. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.17734

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