Convergence of Probability Measures. By P. Billingsley. Chichester, Sussex, Wiley, 1968. xii, 253 p. 9 1/4“. 117s.

Convergence of Probability Measures

Recursive partitioning methods have become popular and widely used tools for nonparametric regression and classification in many scientific fields. Especially random forests, which can deal with large numbers of predictor variables even in the presence of complex interactions, have been applied successfully in genetics, clinical medicine, and bioinformatics within the past few years. High-dimensional problems are common not only in genetics, but also in some areas of psychological research, where only a few subjects can be measured because of time or cost constraints, yet a large amount of data is generated for each subject. Random forests have been shown to achieve a high prediction accuracy in such applications and to provide descriptive variable importance measures reflecting the impact of each variable in both main effects and interactions. The aim of this work is to introduce the principles of the standard recursive partitioning methods as well as recent methodological improvements, to illustrate their usage for low and high-dimensional data exploration, but also to point out limitations of the methods and potential pitfalls in their practical application. Application of the methods is illustrated with freely available implementations in the R system for statistical computing.

https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10589/1/partitioning.pdf

An Introduction to Recursive Partitioning: Rationale, Application and Characteristics of Classification and Regression Trees, Bagging and Random Forests

The usage of psychological networks that conceptualize behavior as a complex interplay of psychological and other components has gained increasing popularity in various research fields. While prior publications have tackled the topics of estimating and interpreting such networks, little work has been conducted to check how accurate (i.e., prone to sampling variation) networks are estimated, and how stable (i.e., interpretation remains similar with less observations) inferences from the network structure (such as centrality indices) are. In this tutorial paper, we aim to introduce the reader to this field and tackle the problem of accuracy under sampling variation. We first introduce the current state-of-the-art of network estimation. Second, we provide a rationale why researchers should investigate the accuracy of psychological networks. Third, we describe how bootstrap routines can be used to (A) assess the accuracy of estimated network connections, (B) investigate the stability of centrality indices, and (C) test whether network connections and centrality estimates for different variables differ from each other. We introduce two novel statistical methods: for (B) the correlation stability coefficient, and for (C) the bootstrapped difference test for edge-weights and centrality indices. We conducted and present simulation studies to assess the performance of both methods. Finally, we developed the free R-package bootnet that allows for estimating psychological networks in a generalized framework in addition to the proposed bootstrap methods. We showcase bootnet in a tutorial, accompanied by R syntax, in which we analyze a dataset of 359 women with posttraumatic stress disorder available online.

/pdf/estimating-psychological-networks-and-their-accuracy-a-ljt6ufq2za.pdf

Estimating Psychological Networks and their Accuracy : A tutorial paper

This paper introduces the model confidence set (MCS) and applies it to the selection of models. A MCS is a set of models that is constructed such that it will contain the best model with a given level of confidence. The MCS is in this sense analogous to a confidence interval for a parameter. The MCS acknowledges the limitations of the data, such that uninformative data yield a MCS with many models, whereas informative data yield a MCS with only a few models. The MCS procedure does not assume that a particular model is the true model; in fact, the MCS procedure can be used to compare more general objects, beyond the comparison of models. We apply the MCS procedure to two empirical problems. First, we revisit the inflation forecasting problem posed by Stock and Watson (1999), and compute the MCS for their set of inflation forecasts. Second, we compare a number of Taylor rule regressions and determine the MCS of the best regression in terms of in-sample likelihood criteria.

/pdf/the-model-confidence-set-4l6xe5phgf.pdf

The Model Confidence Set

Model Selection and Inference

Model selection has an important impact on subsequent inference. Ignoring the model selection step leads to invalid inference. We discuss some intricate aspects of data-driven model selection that do not seem to have been widely appreciated in the literature. We debunk some myths about model selection, in particular the myth that consistent model selection has no effect on subsequent inference asymptotically. We also discuss an “impossibility” result regarding the estimation of the finite-sample distribution of post-model-selection estimators.

Model selection and inference: facts and fiction

http://stat.rutgers.edu/home/ztan/material/leeb-potscher-hodges-2008.pdf

Sparse estimators and the oracle property, or the return of Hodges’ estimator

We consider the problem of estimating the unconditional distribution of a post-model-selection estimator. The notion of a post-model-selection estimator here refers to the combined procedure resulting from first selecting a model (e.g., by a model selection criterion like AIC or by a hypothesis testing procedure) and then estimating the parameters in the selected model (e.g., by least-squares or maximum likelihood), all based on the same data set. We show that it is impossible to estimate the unconditional distribution with reasonable accuracy even asymptotically. In particular, we show that no estimator for this distribution can be uniformly consistent (not even locally). This follows as a corollary to (local) minimax lower bounds on the performance of estimators for the distribution; performance is here measured by the probability that the estimation error exceeds a given threshold. These lower bounds are shown to approach 1/2 or even 1 in large samples, depending on the situation considered. Similar impossibility results are also obtained for the distribution of linear functions (e.g., predictors) of the post-model-selection estimator.

Can One Estimate The Unconditional Distribution of Post-Model-Selection Estimators?

We consider the problem of estimating the conditional distribution of a post-model-selection estimator where the conditioning is on the selected model. The notion of a post-model-selection estimator here refers to the combined procedure resulting from first selecting a model (e.g., by a model selection criterion such as AIC or by a hypothesis testing procedure) and then estimating the parameters in the selected model (e.g., by least-squares or maximum likelihood), all based on the same data set. We show that it is impossible to estimate this distribution with reasonable accuracy even asymptotically. In particular, we show that no estimator for this distribution can be uniformly consistent (not even locally). This follows as a corollary to (local) minimax lower bounds on the performance of estimators for this distribution. Similar impossibility results are also obtained for the conditional distribution of linear functions (e.g., predictors) of the post-model-selection estimator.

/pdf/can-one-estimate-the-conditional-distribution-of-post-model-nffmgeh0h4.pdf

Can one estimate the conditional distribution of post-model-selection estimators?

http://www.stat.rutgers.edu/home/ztan/material/potscher-leeb-lasso-2009.pdf

Hannes Leeb

Papers

Model selection and inference: facts and fiction

Sparse estimators and the oracle property, or the return of Hodges’ estimator

Can One Estimate The Unconditional Distribution of Post-Model-Selection Estimators?

Can one estimate the conditional distribution of post-model-selection estimators?

On the distribution of penalized maximum likelihood estimators: The LASSO, SCAD, and thresholding