Statistics Surveys 

About: Statistics Surveys is an academic journal published by American Statistical Association. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Computer science & Statistical inference. It has an ISSN identifier of 1935-7516. It is also open access. Over the lifetime, 63 publications have been published receiving 8360 citations.

A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection

Abstract: Used to estimate the risk of an estimator or to perform model selection, cross-validation is a widespread strategy because of its simplicity and its apparent universality. Many results exist on the model selection performances of cross-validation procedures. This survey intends to relate these results to the most recent advances of model selection theory, with a particular emphasis on distinguishing empirical statements from rigorous theoretical results. As a conclusion, guidelines are provided for choosing the best cross-validation procedure according to the particular features of the problem in hand.

Causal inference in statistics: An overview

Abstract: This review presents empiricalresearcherswith recent advances in causal inference, and stresses the paradigmatic shifts that must be un- dertaken in moving from traditionalstatistical analysis to causal analysis of multivariate data. Special emphasis is placed on the assumptions that un- derly all causal inferences, the languages used in formulating those assump- tions, the conditional nature of all causal and counterfactual claims, and the methods that have been developed for the assessment of such claims. These advances are illustrated using a general theory of causation based on the Structural Causal Model (SCM) described in Pearl (2000a), which subsumes and unifies other approaches to causation, and provides a coher- ent mathematical foundation for the analysis of causes and counterfactuals. In particular, the paper surveys the development of mathematical tools for inferring (from a combination of data and assumptions) answers to three types of causal queries: (1) queries about the effects of potential interven- tions, (also called "causal effects" or "policy evaluation") (2) queries about probabilities of counterfactuals, (including assessment of "regret," "attri- bution" or "causes of effects") and (3) queries about direct and indirect effects (also known as "mediation"). Finally, the paper defines the formal and conceptual relationships between the structural and potential-outcome frameworks and presents tools for a symbiotic analysis that uses the strong features of both.

Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules

Abstract: In a mathematical approach to hypothesis tests, we start with a clearly defined set of hypotheses and choose the test with the best properties for those hypotheses. In practice, we often start with less precise hypotheses. For example, often a researcher wants to know which of two groups generally has the larger responses, and either a t-test or a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) test could be acceptable. Although both t-tests and WMW tests are usually associated with quite different hypotheses, the decision rule and p-value from either test could be associated with many different sets of assumptions, which we call perspectives. It is useful to have many of the different perspectives to which a decision rule may be applied collected in one place, since each perspective allows a different interpretation of the associated p-value. Here we collect many such perspectives for the two-sample t-test, the WMW test and other related tests. We discuss validity and consistency under each perspective and discuss recommendations between the tests in light of these many different perspectives. Finally, we briefly discuss a decision rule for testing genetic neutrality where knowledge of the many perspectives is vital to the proper interpretation of the decision rule.

A survey of Bayesian predictive methods for model assessment, selection and comparison

Abstract: To date, several methods exist in the statistical literature for model assessment, which purport themselves specifically as Bayesian predictive methods. The decision theoretic assumptions on which these methods are based are not always clearly stated in the original articles, however. The aim of this survey is to provide a unified review of Bayesian predictive model assessment and selection methods, and of methods closely related to them. We review the various assumptions that are made in this context and discuss the connections between different approaches, with an emphasis on how each method approximates the expected utility of using a Bayesian model for the purpose of predicting future data.

Finite mixture models and model-based clustering

Abstract: Finite mixture models have a long history in statistics, hav- ing been used to model pupulation heterogeneity, generalize distributional assumptions, and lately, for providing a convenient yet formal framework for clustering and classication. This paper provides a detailed review into mixture models and model-based clustering. Recent trends in the area, as well as open problems are also discussed.