Optimal detection of a jump in the intensity of a Poisson process or in a density with likelihood ratio statistics

Camilo Rivera; Guenther Walther

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1211.2859

Optimal detection of a jump in the intensity of a Poisson process or in a density with likelihood ratio statistics

Camilo Rivera·Guenther Walther

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We consider the problem of detecting a `bump' in the intensity of a Poisson process or in a density. We analyze two types of likelihood ratio based statistics which allow for exact finite sample inference and asymptotically optimal detection: The maximum of the penalized square root of log likelihood ratios (`penalized scan') evaluated over a certain sparse set of intervals, and a certain average of log likelihood ratios (`condensed average likelihood ratio'). We show that penalizing the {\sl square root} of the log likelihood ratio - rather than the log likelihood ratio itself - leads to a simple penalty term that yields optimal power. The thus derived penalty may prove useful for other problems that involve a Brownian bridge in the limit. The second key tool is an approximating set of intervals that is rich enough to allow for optimal detection but which is also sparse enough to allow justifying the validity of the penalization scheme simply via the union bound. This results in a considerable simplification in the theoretical treatment compared to the usual approach for this type of penalization technique, which requires establishing an exponential inequality for the variation of the test statistic. Another advantage of using the sparse approximating set is that it allows fast computation in nearly linear time. We present a simulation study that illustrates the superior performance of the penalized scan and of the condensed average likelihood ratio compared to the standard scan statistic.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Camilo Rivera, Guenther Walther. 2014-02-25. Optimal detection of a jump in the intensity of a Poisson process or in a density with likelihood ratio statistics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2859

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

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↗

arXiv2026

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↗

arXiv2026

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↗