Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userBootstrap Inference for Multiple Imputation under Uncongeniality and Misspecification
51
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Jonathan Bartlett
Publication date
2019
fields
Mathematical Statistics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Multiple imputation has become one of the most popular approaches for handling missing data in statistical analyses. Part of this success is due to Rubins simple combination rules. These give frequentist valid inferences when the imputation and analysis procedures are so called congenial and the complete data analysis is valid, but otherwise may not. Roughly speaking, congeniality corresponds to whether the imputation and analysis models make different assumptions about the data. In practice imputation and analysis procedures are often not congenial, such that tests may not have the correct size and confidence interval coverage deviates from the advertised level. We examine a number of recent proposals which combine bootstrapping with multiple imputation, and determine which are valid under uncongeniality and model misspecification. Imputation followed by bootstrapping generally does not result in valid variance estimates under uncongeniality or misspecification, whereas bootstrapping followed by imputation does. We recommend a particular computationally efficient variant of bootstrapping followed by imputation.
rate research
Read More
We propose a distributed bootstrap method for simultaneous inference on high-dimensional massive data that are stored and processed with many machines. The method produces a $ell_infty$-norm confidence region based on a communication-efficient de-biased lasso, and we propose an efficient cross-validation approach to tune the method at every iteration. We theoretically prove a lower bound on the number of communication rounds $tau_{min}$ that warrants the statistical accuracy and efficiency. Furthermore, $tau_{min}$ only increases logarithmically with the number of workers and intrinsic dimensionality, while nearly invariant to the nominal dimensionality. We test our theory by extensive simulation studies, and a variable screening task on a semi-synthetic dataset based on the US Airline On-time Performance dataset. The code to reproduce the numerical results is available at GitHub: https://github.com/skchao74/Distributed-bootstrap.
Single-agent dynamic discrete choice models are typically estimated using heavily parametrized econometric frameworks, making them susceptible to model misspecification. This paper investigates how misspecification affects the results of inference in these models. Specifically, we consider a local misspecification framework in which specification errors are assumed to vanish at an arbitrary and unknown rate with the sample size. Relative to global misspecification, the local misspecification analysis has two important advantages. First, it yields tractable and general results. Second, it allows us to focus on parameters with structural interpretation, instead of pseudo-true parameters. We consider a general class of two-step estimators based on the K-stage sequential policy function iteration algorithm, where K denotes the number of iterations employed in the estimation. This class includes Hotz and Miller (1993)s conditional choice probability estimator, Aguirregabiria and Mira (2002)s pseudo-likelihood estimator, and Pesendorfer and Schmidt-Dengler (2008)s asymptotic least squares estimator. We show that local misspecification can affect the asymptotic distribution and even the rate of convergence of these estimators. In principle, one might expect that the effect of the local misspecification could change with the number of iterations K. One of our main findings is that this is not the case, i.e., the effect of local misspecification is invariant to K. In practice, this means that researchers cannot eliminate or even alleviate problems of model misspecification by changing K.
In this paper, we study the estimation and inference of the quantile treatment effect under covariate-adaptive randomization. We propose two estimation methods: (1) the simple quantile regression and (2) the inverse propensity score weighted quantile regression. For the two estimators, we derive their asymptotic distributions uniformly over a compact set of quantile indexes, and show that, when the treatment assignment rule does not achieve strong balance, the inverse propensity score weighted estimator has a smaller asymptotic variance than the simple quantile regression estimator. For the inference of method (1), we show that the Wald test using a weighted bootstrap standard error under-rejects. But for method (2), its asymptotic size equals the nominal level. We also show that, for both methods, the asymptotic size of the Wald test using a covariate-adaptive bootstrap standard error equals the nominal level. We illustrate the finite sample performance of the new estimation and inference methods using both simulated and real datasets.
Causal discovery algorithms estimate causal graphs from observational data. This can provide a valuable complement to analyses focussing on the causal relation between individual treatment-outcome pairs. Constraint-based causal discovery algorithms rely on conditional independence testing when building the graph. Until recently, these algorithms have been unable to handle missing values. In this paper, we investigate two alternative solutions: Test-wise deletion and multiple imputation. We establish necessary and sufficient conditions for the recoverability of causal structures under test-wise deletion, and argue that multiple imputation is more challenging in the context of causal discovery than for estimation. We conduct an extensive comparison by simulating from benchmark causal graphs: As one might expect, we find that test-wise deletion and multiple imputation both clearly outperform list-wise deletion and single imputation. Crucially, our results further suggest that multiple imputation is especially useful in settings with a small number of either Gaussian or discrete variables, but when the dataset contains a mix of both neither method is uniformly best. The methods we compare include random forest imputation and a hybrid procedure combining test-wise deletion and multiple imputation. An application to data from the IDEFICS cohort study on diet- and lifestyle-related diseases in European children serves as an illustrating example.
Hierarchical inference in (generalized) regression problems is powerful for finding significant groups or even single covariates, especially in high-dimensional settings where identifiability of the entire regression parameter vector may be ill-posed. The general method proceeds in a fully data-driven and adaptive way from large to small groups or singletons of covariates, depending on the signal strength and the correlation structure of the design matrix. We propose a novel hierarchical multiple testing adjustment that can be used in combination with any significance test for a group of covariates to perform hierarchical inference. Our adjustment passes on the significance level of certain hypotheses that could not be rejected and is shown to guarantee strong control of the familywise error rate. Our method is at least as powerful as a so-called depth-wise hierarchical Bonferroni adjustment. It provides a substantial gain in power over other previously proposed inheritance hierarchical procedures if the underlying alternative hypotheses occur sparsely along a few branches in the tree-structured hierarchy.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
