xtest
Beyond Fixed False Discovery Rates: Post-Hoc Conformal Selection with E-Variables
Conformal selection (CS) uses calibration data to identify test inputs whose unobserved outcomes are likely to satisfy a pre-specified minimal quality requirement, while controlling the false discovery rate (FDR). Existing methods fix the target FDR level before observing data, which prevents the user from adapting the balance between number of selected test inputs and FDR to downstream needs and constraints based on the available data. For example, in genomics or neuroimaging, researchers often inspect the distribution of test statistics, and decide how aggressively to pursue candidates based on observed evidence strength and available follow-up resources. To address this limitation, we introduce {post-hoc CS} (PH-CS), which generates a path of candidate selection sets, each paired with a data-driven false discovery proportion (FDP) estimate. PH-CS lets the user select any operating point on this path by maximizing a user-specified utility, arbitrarily balancing selection size and FDR. Building on conformal e-variables and the e-Benjamini-Hochberg (e-BH) procedure, PH-CS is proved to provide a finite-sample post-hoc reliability guarantee whereby the ratio between estimated FDP level and true FDP is, on average, upper bounded by $1$, so that the average estimated FDP is, to first order, a valid upper bound on the true FDR. PH-CS is extended to control quality defined in terms of a general risk. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that, unlike CS, PH-CS can consistently satisfy user-imposed utility constraints while producing reliable FDP estimates and maintaining competitive FDR control.
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- North America > United States (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Greater London > London (0.04)
Beyond Consistency: Inference for the Relative risk functional in Deep Nonparametric Cox Models
Ghosal, Sattwik, Meng, Xuran, Li, Yi
There remain theoretical gaps in deep neural network estimators for the nonparametric Cox proportional hazards model. In particular, it is unclear how gradient-based optimization error propagates to population risk under partial likelihood, how pointwise bias can be controlled to permit valid inference, and how ensemble-based uncertainty quantification behaves under realistic variance decay regimes. We develop an asymptotic distribution theory for deep Cox estimators that addresses these issues. First, we establish nonasymptotic oracle inequalities for general trained networks that link in-sample optimization error to population risk without requiring the exact empirical risk optimizer. We then construct a structured neural parameterization that achieves infinity-norm approximation rates compatible with the oracle bound, yielding control of the pointwise bias. Under these conditions and using the Hajek--Hoeffding projection, we prove pointwise and multivariate asymptotic normality for subsampled ensemble estimators. We derive a range of subsample sizes that balances bias correction with the requirement that the Hajek--Hoeffding projection remain dominant. This range accommodates decay conditions on the single-overlap covariance, which measures how strongly a single shared observation influences the estimator, and is weaker than those imposed in the subsampling literature. An infinitesimal jackknife representation provides analytic covariance estimation and valid Wald-type inference for relative risk contrasts such as log-hazard ratios. Finally, we illustrate the finite-sample implications of the theory through simulations and a real data application.
- North America > United States > Michigan (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
OntheAccuracyofInfluenceFunctions forMeasuringGroupEffects
Influence functions estimate the effect of removing a training point on a model without theneedtoretrain. Theyarebasedonafirst-order Taylorapproximation thatisguaranteed tobeaccurate forsufficiently small changes tothemodel, and so are commonly used to study the effect of individual points in large datasets. However, we often want to study the effects of largegroups of training points, e.g., todiagnose batch effects orapportion credit between different data sources.
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.05)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- North America > Canada > British Columbia > Metro Vancouver Regional District > Vancouver (0.04)
- North America > United States > Illinois (0.04)
- North America > United States > California (0.04)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > San Diego County > San Diego (0.04)
Hands-on Experience with Gaussian Processes (GPs): Implementing GPs in Python - I
This document serves to complement our website which was developed with the aim of exposing the students to Gaussian Processes (GPs). GPs are non-parametric Bayesian regression models that are largely used by statisticians and geospatial data scientists for modeling spatial data. Several open source libraries spanning from Matlab [1], Python [2], R [3] etc., are already available for simple plug-and-use. The objective of this handout and in turn the website was to allow the users to develop stand-alone GPs in Python by relying on minimal external dependencies. To this end, we only use the default python modules and assist the users in developing their own GPs from scratch giving them an in-depth knowledge of what goes on under the hood. The module covers GP inference using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and gives examples of 1D (dummy) spatial data.
- North America > United States > Virginia (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > Finland (0.04)
- Research Report (0.51)
- Instructional Material (0.46)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (0.88)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (0.68)