How to rank imputation methods?

Jeffrey Näf; Krystyna Grzesiak; Erwan Scornet

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2507.11297

How to rank imputation methods?

Jeffrey Näf·Krystyna Grzesiak·Erwan Scornet

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Imputation is an attractive tool for dealing with the widespread issue of missing values. Consequently, studying and developing imputation methods has been an active field of research over the last decade. Faced with an imputation task and a large number of methods, how does one find the most suitable imputation? Although model selection in different contexts, such as prediction, has been well studied, this question appears not to have received much attention. In this paper, we follow the concept of Imputation Scores (I-Scores) and develop a new, reliable, and easy-to-implement score to rank missing value imputations for a given data set without access to the complete data. In practice, this is usually done by artificially masking observations to compare imputed to observed values using measures such as the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE). We discuss how this approach of additionally masking observations can be misleading if not done carefully and that it is generally not valid under MAR. We then identify a new missingness assumption and develop a score that combines a sensible masking of observations with proper scoring rules. As such the ranking is geared towards the imputation that best replicates the distribution of the data, allowing to find imputations that are suitable for a range of downstream tasks. We show the propriety of the score and discuss an estimation algorithm involving energy scores. Finally, we show the efficacy of the new score in simulated data examples, as well as a downstream task.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME stat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jeffrey Näf, Krystyna Grzesiak, Erwan Scornet. 2025-07-15. How to rank imputation methods?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.11297

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bias-Correction for Privacy-Protected Spatial Autoregressive Models with Application to Restaurant Network Analysis

Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models and their extensions are important tools for studying network effects. However, with an increasing emphasis on data privacy, data providers often implement protection measures that render standard SAR models inapplicable. In this study, we introduce a privacy-protected SAR model that incorporates noise into both the response and covariates to meet privacy requirements. With noise present in both components, the traditional quasi-maximum likelihood estimator becomes difficult to compute because the likelihood function cannot be directly formulated. To bypass this hurdle, we begin with a pseudo-likelihood approach, initially omitting the noise in the covariates. A Newton-Raphson algorithm is then applied to compute the estimator; however, the estimator is biased. To address this, we propose a bias-corrected Newton-Raphson-type algorithm that simultaneously accounts for noise in both the response and covariates. We further show, under appropriate regularity conditions, that the resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. To further enhance computational efficiency, we also develop a bias-corrected least squares estimator. Several extensions are discussed, and the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods is evaluated through extensive simulations. We apply the proposed methodology to restaurant transaction data from a third-party payment platform. Our method identifies a statistically significant competitive network effect among restaurants and further reveals meaningful restaurant-customer interaction patterns.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

A variational framework for modal estimation

Multivariate mode estimation arises in many statistical problems such as inverse problems, multimodal sampling, and density-based clustering, but becomes challenging in moderate to high dimensions, especially when the underlying density is not directly evaluable. We introduce GERVE (Gibbs-measure Entropy-Regularized Variational Estimation), a sample-based method for estimating multivariate modes by approximating Gibbs distributions directly from samples, without estimating or evaluating the density. GERVE uses Gaussian-mixture variational annealing and natural-gradient optimization, producing a mixture concentrated in high-density regions whose component responsibilities also provide a clustering of the observations. We prove theoretical guarantees in two regimes: as the Gibbs temperature goes to zero, the optimal variational mixture concentrates around the global modes of the population density; at fixed positive temperature, we prove existence, consistency, and asymptotic normality of empirical maximizers and propose a bootstrap procedure for uncertainty quantification. Simulations and a real-data experiment show that GERVE accurately recovers modes and produces meaningful clusters.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Objective Model Prior Probabilities in Variable Selection

For many years it was routine to use equal model prior probabilities in Bayesian model uncertainty analysis. At least twenty years ago it became clear that this was problematic, leading to support of much too large models in the increasingly huge model spaces being considered in genomics and other fields. A popular replacement was to adopt a suggestion of Harold Jeffreys for the variable selection problem in which a total of $k$ possible variables are being considered for inclusion in the model: give the collection of all models containing $d$ variables ($d = 0, . . . , k$) prior probability $1/(k + 1)$ and then divide this prior probability equally among the models in the collection. Many other choices of model prior probabilities that impose severe parsimony have also been introduced. We begin by reviewing the problems with using equal model prior probabilities and then discuss some serious problems with the Jeffreys choice. Finally, we introduce and study a number of objective alternative choices of model prior probabilities, from both numerical and theoretical perspectives.

stat.ME↗